caldrail

Oh please. The Bible is propaganda. It whitewashes everything to portray the christians as the downtrodden Chosen. Whether John was any more accurate or not I can't say, but then I doubt you can. In any case, the early christians edited the content of the Bible so its not really a reliable source of history, regardless of christian sentiment.

Ah, slave.. Have this message sent to Palmyra. You know who must read it. Augustus is too keen to reward us. A few gauls? We outnumbered them nearly eight to one, what chance did they stand? Hardly deserving of a triumph. Perhaps Augustus means well, but I shall prepare for treachery nonetheless. As in business, in politics one must be ready... Go! And take the southern route, I don't want that message falling into the wrong hands...

Calm down Neph....

Ahem. now even I have to say this thesis isn't accurate. In my area are some ancient sites known to have been over-run by saxons. Wayland Smithy, a neothilic burial site, was regarded as a sacred site by the impressed saxon invaders marching down the Ridgeway, and the hill-fort at Barbury is so named because it was taken over by Bera, a saxon warlord. Further, just down the hill from that fort is a level plateau where a dark age battle took place between saxon invaders and romano-celtic defenders, who lost. The remains of this relatively minor set-to have been found. If you look at the map of wiltshire, there are plenty of saxon names given to sites, and we know the saxons were keen farmers as much as hated warriors. Well I would suggest Mr Pryor comes down to north wiltshire armed with an ordnance survey and read up on saxon place-names. He might see things differently.

To Augustus Caesar... The Legiones Augustus Magna remain ready to serve Rome and its Caesar. However, our victory was by overwhelming strength and therefore I have decided to decline your generous offer of a Triumph, and I shall not be upset if Macer chooses differently. The sheer gall of the man! After the expense I went to to raise those legions and now he wants me to give them up! Am I to help pay for celebratory games as well I wonder? Or is this a subtle hint to stand down?... Longinus? Augustus has called for him? Manlius, send for the tribunes. We must discuss what we should do... I fear the stakes are rising and we must be ready for treachery and subterfuge. Just in case you understand... Oh, and bring that Nephele into my tent. I want to persuade her who's side she's on...

Pliny the Younger tells us the romans weren't bothered by earth tremors - they occured often enough on a small scale to become an unwelcome but ordinary event. His recollections have been dismissed as nonsense pretty much up until the modern day, but he made a pretty good record of what happened. Its noticeable from the actions of his father that the effects of a volcanic eruption were simply not known, and therefore whilst there was some immediate hazard, the true scale of the peril wasn't understood. Pliny the Elder received an SOS from a woman named Rectina (she didn't survive), and although he sailed with a number of vessels to rescue her and those with her, he instead was forced to sail further south to Stabaiae where he stayed overnight in the villa of his friend, Pomponianus, where he was nearly trapped in his bedroom by the accumulation of volcanic refuse. Making his way to the beach that morning he overcome by the fumes. In a way he was lucky. Many victims were crushed as the roofs collapsed under the sheer weight of pumice, others were overwhelmed by pyroclastic flows. These violent clouds of hot ash and dust are not for the faint-hearted. The cloud will burn the skin, the lungs, which are also lacerated by tiny volcanic glass fragments, and the dust will form cement in the throat and suffocate the individual. Moving at up to two hundred miles an hour, the cloud can travel for some distance as the refugees at the boathouse in Stabaiae found to their cost as they waited for a boat to evacuate them.

So then, provincial law depends on who it concerns. If the judaeans take care of their own problem, then often a roman governor might not interfere - he wants an easy life and letting the locals carry on as much as possible isn't necessarily a bad thing since he's mostly there to keep the place peaceful and paying taxes. If the local problem impinges on roman interests then a stern hand is required. To what extent a roman governor might choose to intervene depends on his character as much as circumstance I would have said.

Provided the centurion has periodic contact with the individual, then no, it wouldn't take long to learn the names of eighty men. In peacetime this is easy. In war, when men are killed or invalided out frequently and replaced by new recruits or those transferred from other units (the romans did do that) then its difficult for a centurion to know everyones name. The centurion would indeed find it easier to learn someones name if he attracts attention to himself as Faustus suggested.

Gladiators fought barefoot for better grip on the sand, something confirmed by analysis of bones found at Ephesus known to be those of gladiators. Be careful, because most of those depictions have anklets, not footwear, which suggests to me that Britain wasn't the only area that anchored fighters in place, although this feature doesn't seem to be shown in such artwork of the imperial period (in Rome at least)

Much is said about elephants in warfare but these animals aren't really temperamentally suitable. They panic easily for one thing. I would guess the superiority of indian elephants was down to temperament (indian elephants are known to be more compliant) and possibly size (although modern african elephants are bigger, there was a smaller species in north africa now rendered extinct). A lot depends on circumstance and he tactics involved. Elephants are never a sure thing. I wasn't aware of these battles at thermopylae but not suprised. In a mountainous area a defile is bound to become a strategic path. The fact the romans won does suggest their superior team training was an advantage, but this was before the professional army, so in this case the romans were a levied army in exactly the same way as the spartans. What we don't know however is the relative quality of the persian arm,ies involved in these battles.

Interesting. The frieze depicts gladiators with very basic gear, not the highly stylised classes that we're accustomed to. As expected, I see men fighting in bare feet.. but do my eyes deceive me? Is picture no 4 showing footwear? Thats unusual, and possibly an error by the artist. On other images, I can see something around the ankles of these men suggesting a means of either keeping them captive or perhaps keeping in place, since we know from finds at amphitheaters that stone blocks with iron rings were used as anchors to keep gladiators in the center of the arena. The helmets used by these men seem to have a similar construction, but with a wider bowl, to legionary types, and the gladius is a military pattern. This means the up close and personal gladiator shortsword either isn't in general use at that time, or again the artist has erred. one man is obviously wearing greaves on his legs, and the shields depicted varies from image to image. Anything from a round greek style shield to a rectangular curved legionary scutum. One man is shown raising a finger in defeat (looking remarkably like an insult to our modern eyes!) whilst a trumpet player sounds the move and brings the mans despair to the attention of audience and referee. Marvellous stuff.

Definitely Clemens. The eyebrows are too close together...

I too live in a region affected by the ice ages. In fact, ten thousand years ago, there were ice cliffs towering over my home up to a mile high or more. Britain does have a complex geology. Chalk, clay, granite, basalt, sandstone, limestone etc. Where I live the victorians had to abandon a railway tunnel under the urbanised hill because of flooding and collapses as they encountered folds of different material. Now whether this affects burials I can't say, but then, burials aren't usually too deep.

yes, I understand the romans were big on spices (understandably), but did they bother where slaves were concerned? Household staff probably fed off kitchen scraps as much as regular meals so I guess they had an advantage. A slave who ran a food stall for a master had even more of an advantage. But the food doled out o slaves without these opportunities? Spices weren't always so cheap. Which begs another question. Was garum cheap to purchase. On the one hand it was very popular, on the other tons of the stuff crossed the mediterranean every day.

Well I had to didn't I? I saw barley on sale in Sainsbury's and with Jamie Oliver inspired enthusiasm, I attempted to recreate a gladiators meal. Probably didn't turn out quite like the real stuff, but I guess it wasn't too far removed from what these people ate. It was bland and almost tasteless. I remember a talking head on tv describing the meal as 'boring' - he was spot on - but it was filling and certainly not unpleasant. No, I haven't sprouted muscles overnight.... Has anyone else done things like this? I'm curious as to whether this sort of re-enactment goes on behind the scenes amongst us enthusiasts. There was a thread a little while ago where someone was doing a school project on this sort of thing.

Also remember the phalanx is a great archery target - a big square mass of men mostly unprotected (No, rephrase that, exposed). Spartans with sword and shield are more flexible and find it easier to avoid arrows.

In the ancient world, posing as someone else was a primary tool of subterfuge. Zenobia for instance dressed up a slave and paraded him through Antioch (I think that was the city concerned) as the 'captured emperor'. We have a slave pretending to be Nero long after his death. I like the plot though - Agrippa Postumus escaping his fate at the hands of assassins and struggling to regain his former status and inheritance. Free men did hide as slaves sometimes. In the reign of Augustus there were scandals about rural slave barracks that harboured men who kidnapped travellers and enslaved them, and Tiberius investigated these places, not only for that, but also because the same barracks were housing free men who'd rather not sign to a legionary draft. These men would rather pose as a slave then join the forces. So the attitude we find commonplace in the later empire was already in existence at the start of the principate. Or are we dealing with a deliberate 'false churchill'? That this slave Clemens was brought into Postumus's service because of his resemblance? Such a man would be useful in a dangerous political bearpit.

I'm curious about Postumus. I've read the passages in Suetonius/Tacitus and the quote above merely restates the same views. So what exactly did he do? Ok, the description suggests he was overly aggressive, rude, perhaps arrogant, and certainly didn't care too much what people thought of him. But there's no mention of any one event that shows him in a bad light, and given Suetonius's penchant for recording sensationalist gossip in particular, why hasn't his behaviour been illustrated by an anecdote as most historical figures of the time did? I find that most curious...

I'm not sure that the eruption being unexpected was the cause of Pliny the Elders death - even if he'd known the eruption was to occur, his scientific instinct was to investigate, and he would have sailed across the bay to have a closer look anyway. In any case, it was gas that killed him, a lingering by-product of the eruption rather than the immediate fallout.

Given they were sworn to serve and did what they were told, inevitably their motivations were bound to be similar and much less ambitious that they guy handing out orders.

Exuberantly fertile (clad in vineyards) and rustic. Regrettably with a solidifed magma plug firmly emplaced. Mountains grow for two reasons. One is that tectonic movement is compressing two areas together so like putty the rock is squeezed upward. Thats the cause of the himalayas for instance, as India collided with asia in prehistory, and releatively recently too. Thats a slow process. A much quicker one is a by-product of this tectonic movement, as volcanic pressure pushes up the mountain from underneath. Don't laugh, it happens. The same phenomnenon was observed at Mount St Helens shortly before it blew. Yes, the image of Vesuvius painted at Pompeii is romaticised to some degree. Nonetheless, the picture shows a pronounced peak. Now as to whether this is down to the angle of view or not I can't say, but looking at modern photographs of the mountain this sort of peak simply isn't there now. Was Vesuvius something like a third higher than today? It looks that way. No, they didn't, not being so erudite about the world around them. This is something we notice about humans, that they soon get used to the dangers of living close to volcanoes. The soil is often fertile and in survival terms, although a risky investment, its usually considered worth it. For superstitious romans, the volcano is merely an act of the gods. In fact, in AD79, the romans were unaware that Vesuvius was an active volcano at all.

The real trick to understanding romans, I think, is to remember that as humans they were no different from us. We are descended from them, our own culture is partially based on their principles, and even in a small way, there are bound to be similarities. I remember working for a japanese logisitics company in recent years. The oriental mind is very different from the west, as I discovered to my cost. I was told when I joined them that they were an alien species - How right that gentleman was. But the romans are not so alien. Sure, their culture, taboos, customs, andbeliefs are no longer with us... or are they they? I notice our wedding rituals are theirs, preserved by the christian church. We exchange rings, we carry our bride across the threshold in celebration of the Rape of the Sabines. The giving of gifts at Christmas is unashamedly roman. Our sporting activities have developed along similar lines to roman ones. Sure, we don't watch people killing each other for fun any more - our society wouldn't tolerate that level of cruel barbarity - but we still see wrestling, boxing, martial arts, football. These days we see conflict around the world served up to us on prime time news. We watch horror films containing the most horrendous pyschopathic behaviour, and overtly sexual material is big business. In a rather remote way, are we any any different from them. Not really. As people we still respond to the same stimuli, we have the same range of emotional responses. Given the technology and circumstances of the time, I don't see the romans as fundamentally different to us, we could be like them very easily if our society drifts toward conquest and hedonism - and lets be honest - isn't there a part of us that ever so slightly wants to be part of the roman world?

Excellent. Thats exactly the roman depiction I was thinking of.

One roman vs one spartan? Isn't that determined by the individuals capability in combat as much as tactics or equipment? Very difficult to answer questions like that and to be honest there isn't much to be learned from it. In phalanx marching forward the formation would inevitably skew against the wall of the tight pass you describe, so the spartans would lose formation and potentially a disaster ensues. In that situation, a tight shield wall and stout hearts are far better then attempting to push back an entire army, who need only allow you to march forward and eventually outflank you in one way or another. A phalanx cannot be totally effective alone - it needs flank support and the walls of that narrow pass are only partially capable of that. Fine if the unit is coherent but is the pass consistent in width? The correct width? Its unlikely. Put 300 romans there and outflank them in the same way as the spartans were.... Well, I suspect the romans would have fared no better in that case. Its a matter of initiative and response. If the romans were suprised by persians coming behind them then their fate was the same as the spartans.

Where did the Livia-as-poisoner legend start? Tacitus? Tacitus reports this, but it isn't his idea - he's merely stating a common rumour that did the rounds. Perhaps it was just an ancient conspiracy theory - Augustus was indeed an old man and therefore liable to a natural death, but gossip was just as prevalent then as now and people usually less informed, so its inevitable that wagging tongues would seek to sensationalise the death of Augustus.