caldrail

It has to be said the romans were ruthless. If you co-operated, you got all the goodies thier civilsation offered (eventually). If not, they drew swords. Stick and carrot. Now thats an over-dramatic generalisation but you get the picture?

There are characteristics you expect of roman forts, and usally you do find a certain amount of detritus in such places. I wouldn't dismiss the archaeologists too quickly. If all they found was medieval walls then thats what was there. That doesn't mean a roman fort wasn't there at some earlier date and given your location at the end of ermine street (I too live beside Ermine Street near the site of Durocornovium) the potential for a roman site has to be observed. Are there any other roman forts in the area? If so, then the likeliehood of another isn't great. What are the characteristics of this 'fort' that make you think its roman?

There may have been carthaginian troops that served the length of the war in the same way as roman ones. Its important though to realise that mercenaries are notorious for fickle behaviour in past ages. Certainly Carthage relied on these men so there must have been a standard of reliability, but since the carthaginian mercenary soldier is there for money and not for loyalty to his lord or country, ultimately there's no guarantee they would last the campaign. Money being money however, I have no doubt it would attract soldiers for that reason alone. I'm not sure that Hannibals family were able to operate as free agents entirely. If they did access and control that wealth, it does make a difference, yet I don't see any evidence that Hannibals troops were especially well paid, and given their isolation from any supply line, nor were they likely to be. I might delve into this question a bit further when I get time - I think there's an interesting point about Hannibals campaign emerging here.

Partly this is because many people have strong ideas about what constitutes certain roles and what certain historical personalities were. I'm not immune to that, nor can I claim to know more than anyone else. However, our concept of emperor is a modern one, and although many roman rulers conform to that concept, there is a background of romanticism toward history (our love of myth and legend is a very old human trait) that sometimes gives a rosey eyed view of what these people were. I look for similarities to modern behaviour - for a good reason. people are no different now. They have the same impulses and emotions, and their responses are broadly similar. Sure the roman culture was different to ours, but it was far from alien, especially since we adopt many principles and ideas that they did. So what we're arguing is definitions. Some people prefer very precise ordered and scientific appraisals, others might want a more generalised idea. Its a fundamental trait of human beings, especially the male gender because of its psychology, to become very anal about an area of knowledge, and often overly proud of what you've learned or assume you understand. Now some might be raising their eyebrows or clutching their ribs at this point (even snarling?) but face it, there's no absolute authority on roman history and we all see things in a different light depending on our own lifetime experience. With any character from history, we might see that person as a noble saviour or complete scum, according to the things we've learned, who we learned them from, and any preconception in our mind. Much of this is convention. Its conventional to say Augustus was a brilliant politican, or that Caligula was mad,etc etc. Simply restating this things does not imply understanding, its merely a safe common viewpoint that won't attract controversy. As for myself, I don't worry too much about being controversial, nor do I assume that letters after a name means the owner is automatically right. In fact, without questioning convention we cannot fully understand because all we do then is learn parrot fashion. What we need to do though, is understand that our own conception has to fit the evidence, and we also need to understand that some evidence is overlooked because it doesn't fit the preconceptions of influential opnion. Did the roman empire end in AD 476? No, not really, no more than the republic ended with Octavians rise to power, but it marks a watershed, a change, and we use this date as a significant marker, and we should understand that it isn't anything else. Does the same apply to titles in roman politics? Again, people are awarded or assume titles for all sorts of reasons and that doesn't mean they had the same status or responsibilities as the last man who did. Was Didius Julianus ever an emperor? Some people list him, some don't. The senate certainly never accepted him, neither did the roman public. yet offically he did assume the title of Caesar. What do you think? You see? Its largely opinion. So let the debate continue!

I'm sorry, Caldrail, this is total tommy rot! I am not sure what books you have been reading at all! There was the little thing called The Augustan Peace; there was an enormous rebuilding programme and advances in engineering; there was the founding of colonies; there was stability. Augustus's reign was remembered for all these things. And you are not prepared to call them 'events and advances'? Words fail me, for once - they really do. The augustan peace was kept in place by a man who acted much like a modern dictator or gangster - anyone who questioned the regime too much either listened to reason or disappeared. The colonies were a roman franchise, an extension of Augustus's regime, and a means to increase his income which he could then use to further beautify Rome and buy popular support. Making a city beautiful isn't so unusual, lots of dictators have done that, including Hitler whom you rate so highly. Tommy rot? No, I feel healthy enough and read the same books as you. I'm just not fooled by the statues or public image. ,

The demise of the roman republic was a failure of politics and tradition to contain personal ambition. Eventually any social structure will be challenged by someone who wants to rule, and Rome began to suffer this decay once the precedent had been set. The permanent legions allowed these men to enforce their will by military threat, but since these personalities were going to rise anyway, they would have found other means to obtain control. So yes, the permanent army did contribute as a catalyst to those events instead of other means. Remember that Octavian hired assassins to kill Marc Antony early on and failed. He didn't want to fight a war, just to take out his rival. Eventually he had to use an army for that end in the struggle for dominance. It was that struggle that pushed the republic aside (but didn't end it - republican institutions survived unchanged into the empire).

Phil, I've argued over your opnions at times but this time I agree completely. Its all a case of perspective isn't it? But perhaps the original post wasn't concerned with scientific appraisal as not everyone approaches history from that viewpoint. However, I put forward Alfred the Great of Wessex. He restored his kingdom, united England, settled peace with the Vikings (after whipping their backsides!), and encouraged learning at the end of the 'dark age'. At least he was a positive leader unlike Hitler or Stalin.

In considering the actions of ancient fleets you have to bear in mind how the ships handled. Roman vessels, even the ones copied from Carthage, were notoriously unwieldy at sea and one reason why they were so reliant on the Corvus during the first punic war, a device which in itself made the vessel even less wieldy, so although it was responsible for some early victories it was generally regarded as a liability for general use. A larger fleet is constrained far more than a smaller one, because more of the ships are inside the formation and therefore with less room to manoever. It might be possible also that a larger fleet has a tendency to close in together more and therefore vulnerable to fire? Signalling for larger fleets must also have been more difficult with more room for human error, buts I don't know how good naval signalling was at this time, even for the romans who had a talent for such things. The advantage of oared vessels is their manoeverability at low speed (at ramming speed forget it, everyones too busy rowing like crazy to steer from below decks and the rudder probably wasn't too effctive?). However, you must also realise that warships were designed to ram and therefore the design favoured straight line speed. The width of these vessels is suprisingly large - there are remains of roman 'dreadnoughts' some 24 metres wide. A point made by Peter Connelly is that there are no survivng portayals of vessels with more than three banks of oars. From that we might assume that the trireme was popular, but we also know that quinquremes were in common use by the greeks, whose ship building skills the romans relied on. These large vessels survived in use until the mediterranean became a 'roman lake', with a few left over for ceremonial purposes in later years. In fact, one reason for the rise in piracy was the reduction in naval power, as the romans preferred to rely on smaller coastal ships that were far more cost effective, and it was only until the Augustan military reforms that a permanent navy was established at all.

The term was applied in honour of a commander, therefore its entirely possible that two military commanders might be awarded with the title at the same time, given the loyalty of their troops. The emperors of course would have none of that and effectively kept the title to themselves. The significance of such awards can vary of time and this is the case with Imperator, which kind of lost its original meaning during the empire and began to be associated with Caesar, the correct term for a roman emperor and even that was a corruption of Julius Caesars name.

Well, it doesn't require much to build a ship, but if you want to arrive dry and unruffled it helps if the vessel is designed to be seaworthy in the first place. No, it does require a level of skill to create ships (the vikings proved that didn't they?). A ships design dictates whether it pushes through a wave or rides it, whether it can turn easily or not, whether it can weather a storm or not, how much load it may carry, how comfrotable it is to travel in, how easy it is to sail... There's all sorts of considerations not obvious to those without sailing experince (which includes me I have to say - any ship I designed would probably founder in calm seas!) and this is why certain vessels are thought to be 'special'. I'm not sure there was a huge difference between greek and carthaginian warships since the mediterranean cultures were all building similar vessels as far as I'm aware. I'm sure that the romans used seasoned wood although I notice at times they built large fleets in a hurry which must have dug deep into stocks of seasoned timber if not wiped it out. Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if some of these vessels were barely seaworthy due to unseasoned timber, and if built in such a way then leaks must have been a constant worry.

C, have you checked any translation from a Latin primary source? (Let say T. Livius, for example?) You can review previous posts on this same thread. I may not be particularly clued up on latin but I do occaisionally look things up. However, in the case of imperator, the title is often confused with 'emperor'. The two words are very different although usually applied to men in similar situations. Imperator is a term conferred on a roman ruler (sometimes by himself although he shouldn't) by the military. It means something along the lines of 'Honorary Chief Commander of Rome's Armed Forces' - and since Rome was a conquest state, the title has political significance. Being awarded it means the troops recognise you as their overall commander and therefore so should you. Now, if you think that definition is wrong, you're entitled to say so, but you will get an arguement, because it came from someone far more learned than me.

What we see a lot of in naval history, as pointed out above, is development of other peoples ideas. Rome got their warships by copying carthaginian vessels, the saxons got their ideas on ships from roman vessels, and quite possibly saxon ships inspired those of the vikings etc. Building ships, or rather efficient and safe ones, requires knowledge and experience. The romans were building trading vessels before the punic wars, but I don't think as a nation they knew how to build them. rather, there were people in those places with the requisite skills if you understand my point, and given the relatively slow build requirement of civilian trade, then these skills weren't in hot demand so logically there might be few naval architects around to oversee construction. When the punic wars begin, suddenly the romans need naval vessels. They don't have the necessary skill pool to build a war fleet from scratch, although as previously pointed out some ship building skills must have been available. They knew how to build ships, but not in those numbers nor ships of that type. The story of capturing a beached carthaginian warship may not be entirely hype, though I suspect some exaggeration is involved. After all, we see this sort of thing highlighted in modern warfare, where technological secrets of enemy equipment are vital intelligence. Back then, the situation wasn't fundamentally different. The story goes that ship crews were trained to row on dry land before their ships were available. Note that slaves were not employed to row galleys in most cases, rather they were professional sailors, or soldiers in the case of war galleys.

No, not elite, just respected for its success and courage in battle, and favoured at that time. Thats not elite status, just a superior reputation (and ability apparently), but I do understand your point.

Ok, maybe we will know then!

The difference is that previous dictators were temporary, and even Sulla retired voluntarily. Caesar on the other hand had no intention of relinquishing power, and was only too pleased to accept the post of Dictator for life. Thats about as permanent a job as you can get. Why else did Caesar go to the trouble of staging that false coronation and refusing Antony's offer of a crown repeatedly? He knew he was going to be accused of wanting to be king and indeed so he was. You can argue about defintions of roles and so on. Imperator doesn't quite mean general for instance, its an honorific military title applied to someone already in power. By emperor, in our view, we mean permanent autocrat and leader of a dynasty. Caesar was certainly made permanent autocrat and in Octavian, was seeking to ensure a peaceful succession to a chosen person. Suetonius was under no illusions about Caesar - that why he listed him among his Twelve Caesars.

Yet roman vessels sailed to Ceylon, and possibly further since roman goods are known to passed hrough Cambodia and reached China. However, an important consideration is whether there were any markets for roman traders. The supply of animals for the arena is not to be underestimated - it was an emormous logistic enterprise that whilst risky, was potentially lucrative. Given the increasing hardship of finding these beasts to stage performances all over the empire, it isn't so difficult to think of roman traders taking the plunge and pushing further round the coast of africa. However, the question was whether there are any records of such, and I have to say I'm not aware of any. The romans did however have a written guide to travelling the indian ocean.

Revisionism, plain and simple. Of course this can be healthy and considered normal as new evidence arises. Current events (at the time of writing) can influence a thesis, an obvious one would be "Naughty dictator/fascist one man rule" thesis of the nineteen thirties and forties, or the "white mans burden/for the good of civilization" thesis of the eighteen hundreds to support imperialism. Unfortunately certain quarters of this forum seek empiricism when as we know empiricism is an impossible thing in ancient history. Never was a truer word said, PC! I have always maintained that our own outlook influences our interpretation or even reception of history. And I do mean our own personal outlook - not just generational influences; the people rather than the politics. That's an over-simplification, but it should give you the general idea of why this particular woman loves her history. I shall be bold - yet again - and state that I have admiration for ancient autocrats. They do not all have to be like Saddam or Hitler. So unlike others on the Forum I shall maintain my admiration of Augustus, warts and all. But why do you say empiricism is impossible, Publius? Is it so impossible to think ourselves into the Roman mindset? I honestly and truthfully do not think it is so impossible after all. I live in a democracy (well, after a fashion) and would not countenance an Augustus today - for all his merits. But 2,000 years ago, in a different setting, well.... Too few people truly sparkle today. Must we cast away the jewels of history? I suppose my own personal interpretation and reception comes from the fact that I admire personalities, rather than systems. Revisionist? Well... I don't really see my views as such, and as far as Augustus's personality goes a lot of it seems to be an act, a public face. As a leader he also seems to have some shortcomings, including a curious lack of decisiveness under duress. Don't get me wrong - I do admire the bloke for getting the top slot but I'm not fooled by his publicity. Augustus was a crafty beggar and I think this made up for his relative lack of charisma. Where I think Augustus scores heavily is that he seems a shrewd judge of character. He saw Cleopatra coming a mile off! Now you might argue that sending Quintilius Varus to Germania wasn't very shrewd, and this again is an inconsistent judgement, because by reputation varus was known as a greedy man. Did Augustus see him as something different? But then, Augustus knew he wasn't too hot as a military man and sent him somewhere quiet where he could gain experience and reputation gathering taxes, and the machinations of Arminius weren't known to Augustus at that time. Its a conventional view that Augustus was a brilliant politician but I have to say, so far I haven't been convinced of that. Thats not revisionism, I'm not trying to rewrite history, I just see his reputation as something handed down by his supporters. All dictators develop personality cults to stay in power, and in that respect, Augustus succeeded admirably.

The trend is toward warmer global climates. On average, the world has usually been warmer than our current temperatures, so you might say that the earth is returning to normality? Its a little unfortunate, because we've become just a little dependent on our infrastructure which is based on the sea travel of former times and therefore at risk from rising sea levels. As to when another ice age occurs, who can say? The warm ocean currents are a delicate balance, and in theory could freeze britain very quickly if the warm water doesn't reach our shores. On the other hand, the planet wobbles somewhat and another movement like that would also spark off another deep freeze (it could actually go the other way, and we get another hothouse period). Ultimately, we cannot prevent climate change at all.

Elite legions? Not strictly speaking, but some legions acquired good reputations. Others didn't, and I have come across refeences to a legion that was disbanded in dishonour. I think thats the key. There wasn't a permanent elite status as such, more a matter of professional pride. Of course, if a general thought a particular legion was worthy he may well treat them in an elite fashion, but that was conditional on their conduct. Legions did get mentioned for bravery. As for the media, that was very limited in roman times, and the victory was more important than any unit that contributed to it. Remember that no roman general is likely to give the kudos for the win to his troops alone - oh no - for reasons of personal aggrandisement and career advancement he'll keep the credit for himself, although he would no doubt praise his men for obeying orders and fighting fearlessly. Courage on the battlefield might assist your promotion prospects, but it wouldn't be guaranteed. If your face didn't fit, you went no further. Promotion wasn't quick in the roman military and experience was valuable for this. So too were your contacts. If your family were important or you had influential friends, your promotion prospects might blossom. However, having said that, take note of the career of Cassius Chaerea (The chap who instigated Caligula's death). He rose to the attention of the influential by virtue of his courageous service in Germania during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius, and eventually rose to become Prefect of the Praetorian Guard. The only real elite formation in the roman military was the praetorians, status that they guarded and exploited. They received better pay than ordinary legions and served for 16 years as opposed to 20 plus another 5 in reserve status.

Not at all. Asking questions is the basis of learning. If you don't question existing knowledge then all you do is learn by rote, and that does not produce understanding. Miltary matters have changed considerably since roman times in certain ways, but not others. For the romans, soldiers were ordinary common people. Even when some hero courageously defies death, he gets a mention in dispatches, perhaps a reward, then goes back to his unit as an ordinary soldier again. These days we tend to see the elite soldier as the solo warrior, fearless, totally in control, and highly skilled. A modern soldier who does something heroic might well be presented in the media as such. Not the romans. They wanted their soldiers to know they were part of a legion, that they must adhere to the formation, and must not assume status accorded to others. In some respects this seems hypocritical given the status some slaves like gladiators or charioteers achieved, but these were men who entertained and were intentionally lauded as heroic individuals. With regard to elite units, once again the romans were aware that men who thought too highly of themselves were prone to poor behaviour, and the praetorian guard are classic examples of this. Given elite status by virtue of their role, they used it to feather their own nest more often than not.

Except in most cases the inca populations welcomed their visitors as the return of the White Bearded God. There was hardly any resistance, and the spanish did some nasty things on the quiet, including the assassination of the inca prince in order to nab his gold. Further, the spanish introduced disease to the area that severly reduced the population from that time. No inca in 1000AD? Ok, but what culture were the local inhabitants before? Methinks there was something broadly similar or perhaps less unified and sophisticated.

One area where the romans were extraordinarily tolerant was religion. Despite the christian persecutions, which were occaisional and unusual, foreign religions were often adopted and 'romanised'. For instance, a celtic god in britain becomes Sulis Magna. Greek gods are renamed and become part of the state religion. Cults like Bacchus and Serapis gave some romans a chance to belong to secretive clubs. Culturally, the romans thought they were the center of the universe, and that all barbarians should be ideally be romanised. Senior romans liked nothing more than to see a former barbarian come to his senses and fit in. That said, there were always people in roman lands who did not accept roman culture, and much like foreign immigrants today, formed ghettoes. I'm not aware that the romans ever persecuted these ghetto populations apart from some nasty incidents performed by the likes of Caracalla in Alexandria, but even then he did that over a personal slight and not for racial or cultural reasons. In response to your question, the answer is yes, in that the acceptance principal has left us with a long lasting legacy of roman influence in our modern culture. Persians simply said - "You must obey your new lords". I doubt the mongols cared much. Dutch? Their empire emerges in the late medieval period with the increase in sea trade.

Return of republican twin consuls? Hardly, since the consular system still existed underneath the emperors. As to how the power sharing actually worked, its probable we'll never know, because it may well have been a gentlemans agreement between them or some arrangement foisted on them by someone else. Power sharing is done for two reasons in the roman empire. Firstly, because its a useful way of spreading the strain of rulership, but also because it allows a potential rival some room to breathe. Naturally there are flaws in such situations and without some clear understanding of limits or compatible personalities, the result is often conflict. For instance, Diocletians terarchy worked because Diocletian was a skilled diplomat with enough influence to ensure everyone behaved. Once he retired, the system broke down.

Contrary to some answers, the climate in north africa has been undergoing change for millions of years, and there has been a small change since roman times. Generally speaking the climate is slightly drier than previously, and the spread of the sahara isn't entirely man-made, although we haven't helped at all. There is some emperical evidence for this, in that the egyptian sphinx at Gaza has signs of rain erosion, but this has been hotly debated, mostly by people who don't like the idea that the sphinx is older than the pyramids nearby or that the climate has changed significantly. As for forests, I don't know of any evidence. Savana style scrubland and grassy steppes are known to have existed in roman times over large areas of north africa and most of these have now atrophied considerably. With agriculture and the irrigation that went with it, north africa was able to support a highly urbanised population in that region, and we know that the african coast had more roman towns and cities than any other part of the empire.

By hard graft and plenty of cash. Rome of course built a navy from scratch against Carthage after capturing a beached carthaginian vessel (thus reverse engineering how such ships should be made, even if they weren't too clued up as to how to use them in war. It was by using the Corvus, the droppable ramp, and fighting sea battles with land troops in a way that Rome understood well, that gave them an opportunity to fight Carthage with some advantage. There are other instances of ships built in a hurry. Germanicus had one hundred coastal vessels put together for an expedition to penetrate Germania by river for instance, not to mention the two seperate fleets assembled for Caesars invasion of Britain. The creation of a fleet of ships at short notice is an exercise in logistics that the romans excelled at. Ships of these kinds did not need permanent shipyards or dock facilities. You might just as easily put them together on a convenient beach. The larger galleys I'm not sure about, given the sizeable weight these vessels must have displaced. However, apart from the knowledge of form and design, the actual construction wasn't especially complex and required the sort of artisans commonly available in coastal areas. Your soldiers might also be employed in logging for instance.