caldrail

Yes those mass sacrifices are extraordinary aren't they? I saw a tv prog some time ago that suggested an interesting theory about it. It said that what was going on was an attempt to delay the 'end of the world' by appeasing the gods with these endless killings. Apparently they had a prophecy that the world would end and considered that 'a bad thing'. Then I consider the christian end-timers who believe the apocalypse is due any day now, with its instant disappearances of the faithful and the hell and torment to be suffered by the rest of us left behind, and I wonder if there's a parallel here? That there's something buried in human psychology that drives people to these strange excesses of belief and action. Ok, these end-timers aren't ripping out hearts on a production line, but they do commit some awful atrocities on the quiet now and then.

Rudyard Kipling wrote this at the start of the twentieth century. Its pretty inspirational, and worth repeating here...

Its known that a marching fort existed near the junction of roman roads on the east edge of what is now Swindon, more accurately near the village of Wanborough, though I must confess I don't know the exact location - must find that in the local library sometime. Nonetheless, the vicus for the fort is nearer Swindon, and roadworks uncovered signs of roman habitation adjacent to the old road. We also know the cemetary is partially buried under a Swindon housing estate. The roman roads join the routes from Cunetio, Venta Belgarum, and Corinium (the second largest town in roman britain), so the road may well have been a busy one at times, and given the pottery kilns found in west swindon and north toward Cricklade, with plenty of trade besides soldiers. The fort was named Durocornovium, which gave its name to Dorcan Brook, which in turn gave its name to Dorcan, another Swindon housing estate. Now this is interesting, because the signs are that Durocornovium was abandoned at the end of the third century. Why? Were the legions posted elsewhere? In any event, the roman habitation around the area appears to be abandoned from that period, which a resurgence in different locations that ends a century later. There is some caution needed in assuming that Durocornovium was a fully fledged fort, and I do wonder if it was a smaller scale staging post, at least for most of its life.

Owning slaves is indeed a sign of prosperity, but the scene of idyllic rural bliss, so beloved of the romans, is somewaht ruined by the sight of 'swing low sweet chariot' don't you think? We know that rural slaves were worked hard and not particularly well treated. Estates were generally away from the public eye so there was less chance of attracting unfavourable comment by the treatment of them. Whilst it was an accepted part of roman society for these people to earn their keep with physical toil, appearances mean everything. Think about it. You've invited a senior magistrate to your home with a view to getting his support for your own campaign. What impresses him more? A landscaped front approach with carefully tended meadows, or ploughed fields full of men under the whip? Thats perhaps an extreme example, but the rural idyll is a roman cliche and one they liked to see. In fact, the house owner wasn't worried about whether the casual passer-by knew how many slaves he owned (far from it, it might actually be the sort of thing you would advertise), just that you don't want to advertise how cruel you can be. Public image was very important to wealthy romans and even in the country this must have been important to them, or they wouldn't have gone to such lengths to create such a visible sign of wealth and success.

You seem disillusioned by life, the universe, and everything right now. Believe me, I have every reason to b disillusioned too, but then I ask myself - Why should I be unhappy? I am a free man born into a wealthy democratic culture with a long heritage. Sure, things haven't gone well for me over the last decade, but then I'm still reasonably fit and healthy whilst many at my age aren't. Your experience in Iraq has shown you what humanity is - a bunch of animals doing what they need to do to survive, dominate, and thrive. It isn't always pleasant is it? First, accept that humanity is what it is - there's no nobility about our species, thats simply a christian myth, but there can be a noble purpose in each of us - and thats your decision. Regarding history, I always remember that quote from Cicero. "To know nothing of history is to remain forever a child". How true. How often do we make the same old mistakes that people made in Cicero's time? How can we know where we're going if we don't know where we've been? For me, despite the trials that life has handed out (and to be fair, there are plenty of people who've had it much worse), I say take pleasure in small things. Thats not a pun in any way, its simply that our modern materialistic society often dulls our enjoyment of all those simple pleasures. Take time out and find places of natural beauty and learn to appreciate them in solitude, at least for while anyway. Its amazing how a glimpse of the natural world can be so uplifting, and I'm not the only person who says that.

I think there's also a reminder in all of this of how precarious sea travel could be in those times. This was the early days of ship design and I doubt the vessels were capable of weathering storms easily, much less cope with what appears to be tsunamis.

The native British had developed a disorganised system of agriculture dating from the Iron Age, whose purpose was primarily subsistence farming. Archaeology has shown signs of grids of ancient tracks across valleys used to link the more important routes following the high ground. These farms weren't always as primitive as might be imagined. Rectangular celtic fields, or Lynchets, were intensively farmed with ploughing and basic crop rotation. The success of these primarily subsistence farms led Caesar to comment that he found the island well populated, the countryside thickly studded with homesteads, and the cattle numerous. In fact, some of this can be traced to the migration of Belgae into Britain ahead of Caesars expeditions, whose people had introduced more advanced metal working, the potters wheel, rotary querns for milling flour, the first real towns, or Oppida as Caesar called them, plus gold, silver, and bronze coinage based on greek and roman currency the Belgae had become familiar with in Europe. Although the towns became the centers of population in Roman Britain, the majority of people lived and worked in the countryside, continuing the subsistence lifestyle until roman roads and organisation began to improve trade, allowing farms to sell surplus and therefore prosper under the new regime. Roman methods brought improvements over a period of time that included new crops, new growing patterns, expansion of livestock farming, grain storage, horticulture, gardening, and perhaps most important from a cultural point of view, the country villa, of which over a thousand are thought to have been built spread largely over southern England. Originally the iron-age farms of the Celts and Belgae continued to be farmed by their owners after the roman occupation, with some of the more successful farmers becoming the Romano-British aristocracy under whose ownership the country estate became established. There is a pattern of development of these villas, beginning with native wooden houses or roundhouses, replaced with basic stone houses that form the nucleus of extended dwellings that sometimes grew to almost palatial sizes. There are four generally recognised styles of roman villa - The wooden cottage, the corridor villa, the courtyard house, and the aisled villa. The villa was not simply accomodation for a wealthy land-owning family. Adjacent buildings might be provided for slaves and household servants, threshing floors, corn driers, tanning, pottery, tile production, timber management, metal working, and wool production. In later centuries even viticulture became established after the prohibition of foreign wine-making by Augustus had been set aside, although this was never widespread in Britain. It might be expected that stables for horses existed in grander homes, and the lack of evidence for cattle barns suggests that such buildings were generally wooden, although drains have been unearthed. Some archaeologists have argued they were uncommon, given that breeds of the day were hardier than modern stock and may well have spent all year outdoors. There is also evidence of major villas being linked by special roads. It might also be tempting to see these villas as something akin to modern country retreats, but in general this isn't true. The large cost of building and decorating these grand homes was offset by the introduction of rural industry and agricultural specialisation. The owners were therefore seeking to maximise the profits that could be obtained from their property, and it worked. The roman occupation of Britain was all about profit, whatever Rome could obtain from its conquest, and there would always be enterprising men to fill that need. Iron working is especially noted for its widespread trade, with many country villas operating forges. Timber management to supply building materials and fuel for fires is believed to have become increasingly important as the scale of roman occupation grew. Pottery remained a rural industry from pre-roman times, often found linked to important villas in the area, and there was an attempt in Britain to recreate the desirable styles of tableware found on the continent In the first century AD country villas were simple affairs, typically wooden cottages on stone foundations, replaced by the more prosperous families by the next century into something more like the expected large multi-storey house, yet some did not evolve further than cottages, so the improvement in wealth and produce was not guaranteed. The earliest villas might well be those belonging to Britons who co-operated with the Roman occupation. As Roman towns developed in size the spread of governmental systems went with it, and as time progressed country villas may well have become owned by 'foreign' romans, or even the imperial family, with agents and tenants running the properties for their masters. The military had a significant effect on the development of industry within Roman Briatain. For example, in the supply of metals the military initially controlled this as a reserved resource, later allowing concessions to chosen individuals (Conductores), or even primitive commercial companies (Societates), who might then base their business in towns or country estates as appropriate. In fact, particularly with such things as leather or pottery, the output of a country estate might be geared to supplying the military and this was something they encouraged, even to the extent of bringing in experts from abroad to instruct the locals on styles and techniques required. The site of country homes was typically chosen on the basis of good arable land, so its fairly obvious the owners had every intention of profitting from the land, and since many were sited on existing homesteads, continuing to do so. In some cases, these homes were built with a view to privacy, using the lay of the land to conceal the presence of a nearby villa. This is further reinforced by a trend toward parkland, especially nearer the road linking the villa to the roman system, leaving the productive land away from the casual spectator. One reason for this would be the use of slave labour on rural estates, something perhaps the owner wouldn't wish advertised both for aesthetic and humanitarian reasons. Visitors may not have been impressed with gangs of slaves working the fields and preferred something more visually appealing on arrival, and the harshness of estate mastery might have given a poor impression of the owners personality. Clearly life could be hard for rural slaves and evidence of chain-gangs has been uncovered. Yet despite this, there is possible evidence of more humane treatment, as in at least one villa mosaics have been found in the servants quarters, although this might represent the changing use of certain buildings. Each villa then formed an independent economic unit supplying produce, processed goods, and manufactured items for sale. The country villas remained centres of rural acivity until the end of the third century AD, when the economic situation begins to destabilise with the fortunes of some villas rising and falling. Nonetheless, many were occupied by anglo saxons after the roman retreat though often in a reduced capacity, with some former grand houses employed as grain stores or animal shelters. The coin circulation quickly disappears at the start of the fifth century which suggests an economic collapse, yet Gildas recorded that immediately after the roman withdrawal there was a period of prosperity, presumably because no-one was paying taxes. Its more generally accepted that after Constantine III took the bulk of the roman legions in Britain across to Gaul in AD406-7 the government of Britain collapsed within fifty years, although its clear that the villa system survived in a fragmented form and endured under the Saxon settlers who may well have adopted some of the roman ways, and there is some reason to believe that this formed the basis of the manorial system of the medieval period to come.

Out of curiosity I picked up a bollywood epic once. Very colourful, full of drama and dark expressions - very high production values in fact - until that woman broke into a song and dance routine on a grassy hill. Oh boy did I laugh! I know this is the sort of thing the indians enjoy and expect, but to my sensibilities, it was a very strange film. Totally unwatchable. Recommended viewing

Yes he did build palaces, or more to the point, country estates filled with follies designed to resemble cities throughout the empire. I think its at Tivoli but correct me if I'm wrong. I really cannot see Hadrian as a stoic - he did like his prosperity - why else did he go for the throne? Oh but they did. Remember people exposing their children at the palace gates because Nero had murdered his mother? Public image was as important then as now. patronage too was a vital link in popularity. If your patron is executed, your bonus and support has gone. The common people really didn't have a lot to look forward to, and knowing their emperor was to going to provide free entertainment and the essentials of life without restrictive laws could mean a great deal to the masses. For example, look how the plebs felt about Tiberius, who was stingy about staging entertainment. Emperors do care about popularity with the plebs - to fail to do so risks your rivals taking that popular support for themselves and we know what happens then. No, don't accept that. The need for heavy cavalry was due to the changing military balance, not because he was any wiser as a military leader. In order to maintain safe home rule he needed to offset the threat of potential enemy action, therefore the need for heavy cavalry was forced on him. Also, there's no reason to believe he was the person who thought it necessary in the first place - thats your assumption - it may well have been his officers who told him that such formations were needed. As for his reign being the zenith of the empire, he inherited that situation, he didn't create it. I agree he was a capable ruler but he doesn't engage the public admiration that other emperors did. You might say his publicity office weren't too hot, but in all honestly, I don't think he cared too much for projecting himself on the public stage, preferring to remain aloof.

We know the romans used a variety of designs according to need. There was for instance those double-ended vessels used by Germanicus on an expedition via river deep into Germania, with rudders at both ends for manoeverability. I also note how easily north sea (or english channel) storms wreaked havoc on the fleets, so its apparent that roman ships weren't the most seaworthy.

I'm astonished! What happened to preserve these ships in place with cargoes intact? I cannot believe they simply walked away from all of that and left it there to be silted up - thats ridiculous. Something must have occured that forced romans away from their property.

Yes, Hadrian died hated by the roman people, and was known for murders committed early in his reign. Although it cannot be denied that Hadrian was a great administrator, he wasn't a great man, unpopular and possibly untrusted by those around him. Also, before you consider him a great emperor, you should bear in mind that Hadrians policy of consolidation had one major flaw - expense. He did nothing to increase the affluence of the roman public nor improve the economy, and money was constantly being spent either on his frontier controls or his personal enjoyment. The analogy with Nero is a difficult one because although they had some similar leanings, Nero was by far a more extrovert and unrestrained character. Nonetheless, Hadrian isn't whiter than white by any means, and like Augustus the length of his peaceful reign is assumed to indicate a great ruler. This isn't necessarily true, and for all his work in consolidating Rome, he still had to put down a rebellion - a task I note he handed to someone else without any personal oversight. Truth is, Hadrian wanted to make sure the empire was secure so he could put his feet up and lead an easy life... Which is exactly what he did.

There was no requirement in the roman legions for the ability to read and write, nor were the majority likely to do so. Although the romans had a very good level of education it must be remembered that the common soldiers usually came from the illerate poor, possibly from a nation where latin is not the mother tongue. Officers would generally come from wealthier families thus education (which wasn't free!) was readily available. They would need these skills for communications of official or mundane nature. Centurions too may have had education, but considering that many were promoted from the ranks there is a distinct possibility that a great many did not, although if someone had risen to this rank there is also a possibility they received a modest education during their service, although the standard of their literacy probably weasn't high. What has been forgotten by some of the above posters is the immunes, the people who had skills that gave them a chance to get away from ordinary physical fatigues - so we know that not everyone could read and write. The availability of these clerks given 'office patrol' meant that senior men whose education was lacking might well use them to transcribe orders, letters, and mundane bookeeping. In fact, there was no reason why a soldier couldn't maintain an educated slave if he could afford one, and certainly officers were likely to consider the utility of personal assistants. Does this lack of education mean the roman army was at a disadvantage? Of course not, given their enemies probably had none at all. The majority of orders were verbal - shouted usually, so soldiers were well aware of what was required from them. Signalling should not be overlooked. The soldiers had a whole series of coded trumpet calls, flags, and burning lights that carried clear messages across distances. In fact, there was little requirement for literacy for the common soldier other than a desirable advantage in staying warm and dry whilst his mates sweated it out outside.

hadrian comes across as something less than the roman ideal leader. His predecessor, Trajan, was of course the great warrior, a conqueror, a man who brought Rome military glory again. After all, he staged games lasting almost a thiord of the year to celebrate his victories. Hadrian however doesn't have a reputation for for staging these entertainments. He seems much more aloof, a more private man, and certainly not someone to lead an army into battle. Hadrian came to power under suspicious means - he wasn't guaranteed the throne, and entered Rome ahead of his rivals to claim it. Once in power, he proceeds to cnduct a policy of consolidation - to encourage romanisation of the territory they already controlled, and he was quick to abandon those territories conquered by Trajan that needed military action to retain under the pax romana. My feeling is that Hadrian was more concerned with his own pleasures than living life in the privations of army camps. Regarding his infatuation with young boys (it must be said he did have such leanings) he was also somewhat mysogonistic toward his wife - so you might conclude he only married her for appearances (and children?). Its hard for me to accept hadrian as a decent man because he took power for his own pleasure rather than to provide leadership to the roman people, and as for patronising arts, well, so did Nero and plenty of other emperors, but doing so does not actually improve life for the common people who generally speaking couldn't afford such luxuries and preferred active entertainments such as boxing, gladiatorial combat, chariot racing, etc, which Hadrian does not seem to encourage. Indeed, we know he made laws to restrict gladiators after their surge of popularity under Trajan. Was that entirely to make roman cities more peaceful, or did he also despise these successful slaves and seek to put them in their place? Therefore, by patronising the arts, he is making himself popular with educated men - those with enough wealth and sophistication to enjoy such things - and perhaps therefore making himself popular with those who might be in a position to replace him?

Its the hill on the southwest side of Swindon, Wiltshire. Look for the curve in the old Wilts and Berks canal on an ordnance survey map - Okus is inside that curve.

Emperors were important people, who often got to that spot by trampling on others. So its likely that they were the sort of personalities not averse to killing anyway. Also we must remember that the roman world was a time of violence, commonplace in other cultures as well as Rome. Cruelty was a common characteristic and the Persians were probably worse thatn the romans in some respects. So we have a man who has grown up in a very competitive society, who has risen to power by dubious means, and must hold on to that power. He must enforce absolute obedience, and discipline upon those around him to prevent any sign of weakness tempting others to replace him. With that in mind, if someone entrusted with an important project has failed him, this reflects on the emperors divinity and reputation, so with his need to show superior ruling ability and popularity with the masses, and given the dangerous world he inhabits, it may be seen as desirable to sentence that someone to an early grave. It's expedience from a ruthless powerful man.

I did, and I see nothing to refute the story. That was from the Wiki article "Aleutian Islands Campaign," although I first read the story in "The Thousand-Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians," by Alan Garfield. You'll find a more-detailed account at http://www.vectorsite.net/avzero.html, although the link to the Corsair is not as explicit. "Nonsense," indeed! One clarification: I did not mean that the Zero's features were incorporated into the Corsair. Rather, the Corsair's specifications were dictated by the need to counter the Zero's features. You're still wrong. The Zero was not an advanced aeroplane at all. It wasn't strong, fitted with with armour or self-sealing fuel tanks, nor was it capable of fighting on even terms at high speed. The Zero was designed for agility, something the japanese pilot found desirable in his quest to become the perfect aerial warrior, and at speed the controls became hard to use due to accentuated compressibility effects whereas the Corsair had been designed to a different philosophy, that of the highest straight line speed. In fact, the study of the Zero had no effect on the more advanced Corsair design whatsoever. What they did learn from the captured specimen was its flight characteristics, not its technogical features, and therefore could evolve suitable tactics to counter what was already becoming an obscelescent design in 1941. The corsair was designed to a pre-war specification, not to an emergency war measure. Yep, I agree there.

Roman occupation is very widespread, but that doesn't mean it was actually roman, often its romano-british. Is there a difference? Sometimes, yes. Many important brits of the time who saw which way things were going and went along with it (dare I say it, collaborated?) were rewarded with important positions in the roman hierarchy. For instance, among the remains in my area is a farmstead at Okus (now a housing development). Romans? No, not likely. It wasn't far from a major roman road and we do find these places strung along the routes accessed by side tracks. Okus was no exception there, although I haven't any idea where this track was, probably across Swindon Hill given the river valley to the west. No, these were poorer folk and probably native brits, as were many of the potters who lived and worked north of the site. The other extreme are the two villas on the main roman route (now the A346 at Chiseldon/Badbury) which may well have been the possessions of important roman officers. Elsewhere, I see a roman well at Swindon Polo Ground, although there's no obvious sign that anyone lived there at the time. Also there is the vicus for the staging post at Durocornovium, whose cemetary is partly underneath Covingham. Recent discovery of well to do houses at Groundwell show that there were a number of wealthy families owning country estates within easy reach of a roman road, whilst the less romanised brits who may well have sought to earn a living from the romans must have lived and worked within easy reach of these settlements and country estates. Places like Liddington Hill or Barbury Castle, iron age hillforts, don't seem to have piqued the roman interest at all and I wonder if these were largely abandoned because of roman economics. I have no doubt the same principles might apply to the original posters area.

No, not really, although recruitment became a big issue in the late empire. Remember that auxillaries were in use during the civil wars between Octavian and Antony, with something like sixty legions in active service. Thats 300,000 men more or less, close to the maximum the romans ever had at one time. It was the skills of these men that made them so valuable. Cavalry, slingers, archers - the romans weren't too hot at these things but some foreigners were, so it made sense to offer them pay and future citizenship in return for service. In fact, auxillaries were often vital in the generals campaign and whilst as foreigners they may sometimes have been considered less valuable than regular troops, they certainly weren't regarded as universally expendable.

FWIW, there's a parallel story from World War 2. As a diversion during the battle of Midway, the Japanese sent a small fleet to attack the Aleutians. A damaged Zero attempted to land on what proved to be muskeg rather than solid ground; its landing gear caught in the mud and the plane flipped over its nose. Several days later, the wreck was spotted by the Americans and shipped back to the States where it was reverse-engineered. The result was the Vought Corsair. Nonsense. Read this... http://www.f4ucorsair.com/tdata/history.htm But back to things roman. Warships of the time were usually beached or anchored overnight as such vessels weren't exceptionally seaworthy, plus they had little in the way of navigation aids and a lot of superstitious sailors on board.

There is that guy from palmyra, a merchant called Barates, who married his freed british slave. Its noticeable that the romans weren't racist. The land of origin counted for very little, and it was your willingness to adopt roman ways and fit in with society that mattered more. However, roman conservatism was present, and it took some time for non-italians to be accepted as roman leaders. With one proviso - Roman class structure. It was very rigid and although the roman culture had systems in place to allow controlled cross-class contact (like lining up for gifts every morning at the senators house for instance) I don't see the upper class giving much largesse to those of lower status apart from that needed for popularity. Notice how unusual Julius Caesar was by deliberately courting popularity with the lower classes by actually meeting and speaking to them. For another example, a man of lowly birth sitting in the same area as senators during a public performance is acting above his station, and may well receive harsh treatment from a magistrate. The romans were extremely class concious and guarded their privileges. Nonetheless, it must have been impossible for romans to conduct business without contact with foreigners, and lets face it, there were ghettoes in some roman cities of people who refused to be roman and retained their cultural heritage. But they still bought goods and paid taxes.

Roman forts served various purposes. Primarily they were safe havens for troops, and bases for patrols in the area, thus they had an internal security function. Forts would have artisans on hand so maintenance and repair are there too. In wilder areas, a fort is an outpost, the first stage in subjugating or colonising a barbarian land. Taxation is also centered on such places. In fact, the way to regard a fort is to see it as something similar to those civilisation games on computers - the fort is the first 'city' plonked on the map in that area, and the romanisation of existing barbarian settlements also hinges on the presence of roman troops.

Shouted orders? thats astonishing! Over all the sounds of wind, water, creaking wood, sweating oarsmen, fighting, and frustrated captains, they actually shouted to each other? I can imagine a naval battle turning into chaos very quickly. I'm not disputing they did that, but I'm curious as to what information you've seen on the subject.

Plato wasn't describing the real island. He'd heard the story of an inundated island of some influence from the egyptians via Solon, but that island didn't suit Plato's desire for drama. So he invented a larger continent, awesome in power and wisdom, and punished for its arrogant folly. Trouble is with fiction of this kind is that sometimes people believe it. Look at all the nonsense about the Holy Grail (which never existed - its a fictional item described by Chertien Des Troyes in the middle ages), or the Da Vinci Code, which people now believe describes real conspiracies and secret cults. Atlantis is a story. Its based on a real event, but searching the atlantic for the lost continent is a waste of time. I really have come to the conclusion that the event was the explosion of Santorini. There is a picture of the island with its central volcanic cone still intact, a city perched on it. When an earthquake let sea water into the fissure, the island blew up, so the real 'atlantis' (whatever the actual name might be) is spread all over the mediterranean. The explosion left a huge crater in the sea bed. This rapidly filled with sea water causing a 'depression wave' and a resulting tsunami, which took out the minoan empire overnight. Its a real event. it happened. Nothing added, nothing mythologised.

I'd like to know how much anyone can do, because their religion is lost to us other than we know they charted the various heavenly bodies. If you want to bring up all this modern neo-pagan stuff, please don't, because thats not based on ancient worship, its just a vague reproduction of what some people would like it to have been. Woooah.... Holidays? Thats a roman concept, not neolithic. Unfortunately you're wrong. Their world did not revolve around heavenly bodies, it revolved around the natural cycle, and was convenient that the heavenly bodies moved in time with seasonal changes. Not in neolithic times I'm afraid. They definitely had a strong cohesive culture with a rich religious life, and yes, up to a point were capable of communal engineering. Well thats not giving us much credit is it? What neolithic engineering are we incapable of reproducing? Successful demonstrations of stonehenge building have already taken place, and we do have the advantage of modern materials and heavy plant. Incapable? Hardly. Its just a question of who pays for it. Incidentially, astrology has no bearing on this. You're making an assumption that astrology is a proven science - it isn't - its a superstition structure based vaguely on whats left of Chaldaean rites, with a great deal of commercialised bunkum thrown in for good measure. Astrology as we understand it wasn't present in Wiltshire back in stonehenge times.