caldrail

Ho hum. Finish them off tribune.... "Yus, Master..."

Classifying slavery as culture doesn't seem too enlightened to me, not even relatively; if that is so, any sort of human abuse might be considered folklore; vg, female genital mutilation ("circumcision") or even anti-Semitism. Since when did culture have to be enlightened? Culture is simply how a group of people prefer to live and the customs they adopt. If you choose the highbrow meaning, fine, but not everyone would see that as superior.

If you could give me the same feedback you have my other two topics I would be very happy and much obliged. I should start quoting a fee for this Did the legions sing and dance? (like the spartans, in fact spartans brought instruments on some campaigns) Possibly. I doubt most legionaries were the sort of people who danced though. A hearty sing song would meet the centurions approval far more. Was the plume/crest in some helms gelled like that or something (is it horsehair as well)? Horsehair - ostrich feathers - anything appropriate was used. No, it wasn't gelled (gel wasn't invented then but I suppose there was stuff that did the same job) They used feathers or hairs bundled together so it would naturally stand straight, like a paint brush. Did a legion also have to provide policing services? Yes they did. Soldiers were often put on guard duty at public buildings or put to use quelling disorder when required. There was an incident in Tiberius' reign where a town decided not to allow a centurions corpse to be moved from the marketplace until his relatives had funded gladiatorial fights. Tiberius sent soldiers in from both ends of the town and many people, including the important people of the town, were imprisoned for life. Was a legion split up amongst a province? No, but detachments did patrol or travel to complete tasks or objectives. How much protection did a rider and more importantly did the horse get, was the saddle similar to todays? Roman saddles were different to today, with four lumps which the rider sat between to support him without stirrups. Generally the horse was unarmoured apart from clibinarii, or 'oven-men', so called because the heat inside the armour was excessive. Most auxillary cavalry wore chainmail, although some roman riders employed scale armour. Later banded mail was used by cataphractii, and the clibinarii are usually described as the same but with an armoured horse. How high could a young legionary be promoted? odd question but necessary, lets say he starts right at the bottom. In theory he could get promoted to emperor. One man did exactly that (Macrinus?) Did legionaries carry whetstones or did they rely on a legion smithy? Both, I'd expect. By what name were you referred to in the legion, d'y'know what i mean (more of a nephele kinda question)? Your latin name. Soldiers were given roman names regardless of which land they originated from. Of course the centurion usually referred to a soldier as "HEY! YOU!" Did legions have their own portable altars or shrines or praying devices? Actually I doubt it. As superstitious as roman soldiers were, such items are encumbrances and remember the soldier enough kit anyway. Historically most soldiers dumped superfluous items they thought would be of value to them the moment they had to march any distance, learning that the basic gear was really all they needed and anything else was simply excess weight. Were there archers? If so were they levied from the surounds when the need arose or were they a permanent part of the army? Roman soldiers were often taught archery but they weren't archers themselves. Roman legions took auxillary archers along with them where available, and these foreign endentured 'mercenaries' were much better at it anyway. That's enough for today Pleased to be of service....

Does this mean that an alien scientist will theorise the existence and culture of our species via the television broadcasts of Cilff Richard?

That a very simplistic view of a tense active situation. True, a lot of it was blood and guts fighting to the last man, but then weren't the spartans defeated partly because they were outflanked by a persian ruse? Regarding tactics, if you have a pass and an approaching enemy, how do you deploy your men for maximum effect? How many reserves can you afford to keep back? Do you wait, or do you attack first? Can you build defenses? What sort of defenses? At what time of day or night is the attack to occur? What is the prevailing weather? Do you stand and fight, or fight a delaying action? There's much to consider even in an apparently simple engagement. Did the spartans defend in phalanx? It seems unlikely. The phalanx is not a defensive formation (though it can be so if the enemy attack head on) and works by pushing the enemy back on the field. The problem is that the phalanx is an awkward formation. It cannot easily manoever, it isn't adaptable to changing situations, it tends to drift sideways when marching (because the men are seeking to protect themselves via the man beside him), and requires flat ground to prevent the formation falling apart. Thre was a roman victory over the phalanx because the roman general chose to fight on rough ground, so the much-vaunted pahalanx could not retain formation and therefore lost its primary purpose. Disagree completely. Man for man the spartans were every bit as fierce warriors as the romans (possibly even more so?), but the romans had the edge on operational strategy and I suspect were better organised as an army, though much depended on who their commander was.

Apparently they generally do think the same way.

Roman expansion was just as much roman greed and glory seeking as defence. Also it must be realised that expansion was often driven by persoanl ambition of men seeking military victory to bolster their public image rather than any need to deal with military threat. Many areas conquered were not a threat to Rome, and they did assimilate some areas without military action. Palmyra for instance operated as a client state - a self contained city state working for roman interests - from the reign of tiberius onward. The quest for new resources, goods, and markets were also a force driving roman trade expansion and we know that roman ships travelled as far as the Indian Ocean, possibly reaching Cambodia or on very rare occaisions China itself though I don't know of any evidence for that. Caesar for instance had three reasons to invade britain. One - For the glory of it. The political kudos of invading that strange island for the first time isn't to underestimated. Two - To stop the gauls receiving assistance from the britons. Having just defeated and subjugated the gauls, Caesar did not want rebels getting aid from their close links across the channel. Three - To find resources, especially the rumoured precious metals which would bolster his personal wealth and fund his career. He got a bit miffed apparently because he didn't find any! There was also the roman desire to spread its own culture. The romans like to romanise, and regarded barbarian cultures as essentially backward and coarse, who needed education into roman ways. They really did regard themselves as the center of the universe by the early empire. Whereas early in the roman expansion they were assimilating nations with some form of developed infrastructure, they were beginning to encounter wilderness. The deserts of africa and the middle east, the steppes and marshes of the north-east, and the german temperate rainforests. Germany in particular was being colonised - the remains of roman towns deep inside what was previously considered wild germany have been discovered. In fact, the Varian Disaster of AD9 put that colonisation aside as Rome was shocked into a defensive posture. Since the need for military success was lessened in political life of the empire, Rome undertook military adventures only when the emperor decided it was time. Claudius did so in an old fashioned attempt to bolster his public image by invading Britain. On the other hand, a natural warrior like Trajan was bound to conquer new areas such as Dacia and western persia. Its noticeable that Hadrian, not the least military-minded, gave up some of these conquests and returned to a defensive posture. So by the empire, it was the personality of the emperor as much as circumstance that determined whether Rome should expand, but in any case, by then Persia was a major rival with a very strong empire of its own.

Tiberius lived on the island of Capri for much of his reign. Nero originally lived in the Domus Transitoria (a palace) until it was fire damaged in AD64, then had the Domus Aurea built along with surrounding parkland in the center of Rome. Vespasian/Titus had the colosseum built on the site of a lake in the grounds. Hadrian built a country retreat. There's probably other examples I'm not aware of.

The plebs were as interested (or not) before and after the change to empire. I don't see it that way, although it did allow the generals of the late republic a standing army to enforce their own political ambition, which brings us to the real cause. It was the rise of a number of individuals who decided to bend the laws and obtain power for their own ends. The republic was a political failure in the end (after a long period of success), not a military one. It was the lack of loyalty of the genrals to the state that allowed one of them to bring in an imperial dynasty. The army by and large did what it was told, the occaisional mutiny aside. Some were good, some were hopeless. The same was true of senators although the average of their opinions and actions meant that many of the potential disasters were avoided, though rule by commitee is never perfect either.

Some african tribes have a culture of slavery and always have. I remember a 'back to their roots' program where one young briton of african descent went to an african country to trace his enslaved ancestors. He was a bit crestfallen to discover that it wasn't the whites who sold him into slavery, but the family. Its true the white traders were only too happy to conduct this trade and all the cruelty that went with it. Slavery isn't unusual in human history - in fact, ours is a relatively enlightened age in that regard.

The fighting ability of the spartans is not in doubt, but you should beware of falling for a legend. In much the way some people regard the romans as invincible, so too the spartans get the same reputation. They were well crushed at Leuctra by the thebans though, and partly because spartan cavalry at that battle was mediocre and badly used. The romans were more tolerant of casualties - thats true - but the much-vaunted discipline on the battlefield is something you need to look closer at, and I recommend reading about Julius Caesars campaigns to find out what he had to do to keep his men in line. Also, the spartans, for all their military ethos, were less inclined toward teamwork than the romans, and being essentially a levied army they were less drilled in manoevers. There was also a cultural bias toward a one-on-one fight based on the older 'heroic' style of battle where two men might fight and decide the battle, letting everyone else go home. How much of that is merely legend I have no idea, but that element of greek warrior mindset crops up occaisionally, and is in some measure one of the sources of inspiration for roman gladiatorial combat. It might be useful to know that roman gladiators made very poor soldiers - they simply lacked the team-training required of military units.

No, he doesn't. Don't guess. If you don't know, look it up or ask. your concept of pila could be what most people called or normally known as the pilum. Pila is the plural form of the single pilum. Same weapon. Hasta is a thrusting spear, the hastatii were named so for using it as a primary weapon. if the hasta could cause immobility and not very maneouverable. then why not ask the question? why a bad weapon spear hasta become a triarii weapon? why the end defense line; the most veteran use it for their "[hasta] the lunging spear."? [of the triarii] pila is the spear of the triarii. was my formal stand. i hope it clears sone question. Roman have [different] name for every weapon they use. The triarii were the older most experienced levies of the consular army. Roman policy was to conserve these valuable troops until the most decisive part of the battle, either in attack or defense, relying on the newbies, the hastatii, to take most of the casualties and perhaps cause some to the enemy, or at least help tire them out. "ad triarios rediisse" 'To fall back on the Triarii' was a phrase to indicate a desperate situation. As I understand it, triarii used the hasta, or long spear, not pila, since the widespread use of a spear with a bendable point was a later innovation. During republican times however the Hastatii were re-armed with gladius and pilum whereas the triarii retained the hasta as a weapon. Incidentially RW, when you described the three troop types of the legion ('hastatii', 'principes', and 'triarii') you gave a time frame as 'Julius Caesar'. Caesar did not command an army until after the Marian Reforms of 107-106 BC. These reforms did away with the levied consular legion and replaced it with a professional army composed entirely of gladius/pilum armed heavy infantry. Granted the change wasn't quite instant, but remember that Marius was making standard a trend that had already been seen in the legion for years.

Its not just politics, its the nature of the beast. We humans are social animals and therefore at times our pack competes with another for whatever reason. War is an extension of natural violence but being such nasty little creatures, we don't have the 'ritualised' bloodless contests that some species do. Personally, I think war is a terrible thing, but then if you don't defend your freedoms then someone will take them away sooner or later. Thats something the romans understood very early on, and they acted on that wisdom, but in their case they started to enjoy the taste of victory - at least until that martial spirit ebbed away in the late empire, requiring them to hire on tons of barbarians to fight for them.

Ever so slightly wrong, Aglibol was a moon god. The one I was thinking of was Yaribol or Hierobol. Malakbel was another sun god. Also I found this quote, but I'm not sure where it comes from unfortunately. Solar pantheism, which grew up among the Syrians of the Hellenistic period as a result of the influence of Chaldean astrolatry, imposed itself upon the whole Roman world under the empire. Our very rapid sketch of the constitution of that theological system shows incidentally the last form assumed by the pagan idea of God. In this matter Syria was Rome's teacher and predecessor. The last formula reached by the religion of the pagan Semites and in consequence by that of the Romans, was a divinity unique, almighty, eternal, universal and ineffable, that revealed itself throughout nature, but whose most splendid and most energetic manifestation was the sun. To arrive at the Christian monotheism only one final tie had to be broken, that is to say, this supreme being residing in a distant heaven had to be removed beyond the world. So we see once more in this instance, how the propagation of the Oriental cults levelled the roads for Christianity and heralded its triumph. Although astrology was always fought by the church, it had nevertheless prepared the minds for the dogmas the church was to proclaim.

Its more likely the errant soldier would get a shove from the optio's hand "GET BACK IN LINE LEGIONARY!"

Sun worship in the late ancient period appears in Syria, a hotbed of hybrid religions most of which were relatively benign, although there were syrian cults involving some serious sexual activity. One sun god, Elagabulus, gave his name to a devotee who became roman emperor at the tender age of 14. A strange lad, a transvestite who was more concerned with religious orgies than running the empire, which he left to his mum. Aglibol was another sun god as I recall, reaching Rome via Palmyra. To be fair, there is some egyptian influence as well, and these exotic beliefs had a good deal of curiosity value to romans whose gods really didn't cater for their emotional needs - something which christianity (and mithraisim to a lesser degree) emerged to fill the market. As christianity moves to increase its market share it begins to 'buy out' pagan beliefs and rebrand them. Thus churches are built on pagan sites. Christian festivals are worshipped during older pagan ones. Christmas for instance is the Saturnalia remarketed with many older roman traditions intact. For some emperors, seeking popularity also means exploiting religious control. Thus constantine shamelessly supports christianity whilst conveniently remaining a pagan until his deathbed, when he converted to ensure he wouldn't go to hell for his earthly crimes if the christians happened to be right after all. Thus the popular sun cults get their own special day courtesy of imperial favour, and the christians claim the rights to it.

Merely a nova I'm afraid. The star coughs and throws off waste material from the surface, resulting in a bright flare. Such things are rare enough, but supernova (The complete destruction of a star) is incredibly rare - I did read of one expert who reckoned there's been three during the life of our galaxy. In any case, an observable supernova had better be a long way off because the explosion has dire consequences for nearby star systems.

The modern west would have been different for sure, having been either based on celtic, germanic, or islamic culture. Or would it? The reason I say that is because the medieval knights with all their supposed chivalry and law were descendants of the same people who trashed the western empire. In fact, roman language and a great deal of their culture survived because the church preserved it, and in most cases medieval barons were too greedy, warlike, and ambitious to worry themselves about history. There were exceptions of course, and whilst I can't remember any examples off-hand there were some kings of england in the middle ages who were studious and keen on learning etc. What would be missing are things like roman law. For instance, in modern britain a murderer might walk free if he pays the weregild to the bereft family. You would have communal courts perhaps, presided over by a local Thane, whose family have run the local borough since the first world war. His word carries a lot of weight, but his powers have been reduced since the Reforms and things are a bit more democratic these days, and he's no longer automatically the commander of the borough militia. The priests have declared a sacrifice is necessary after all these floods we've been having. Well, perhaps you're too busy with your career to go down to the Circle, but then it'll be televised anyway. Mind you, your neighbour has been throwing rubbish into your back yard, so its off to get an appointment with the local reeve and he'll soon sort that idiot out! There's good news too. Our kings daughter has been wed to a scottish noble and therefore the border dispute in northumberland has been neatly avoided.

SEE-SAR is the accepted pronounciation and two centuries of latin teachers can't be wrong The hard 'C' sound is often mentioned but it appears to me that some latin words had variable pronounciations much the same way modern english does - no suprise really, since latin is used wholesale in modern english (Expert opinion someone please). KAI-SAR is a very germanic style I would say.

The sun had not yet risen. Against the pale sky dark clouds hung lifeless, their edges bright from the first rays of light over the horizon, obscured by a dull mist. A solitary gaul wanders about the camp, and the early morning chill still requires him to pull a cloak about him even with his vigorous indifference to the elements. At a camp fire, he joins his fellows, occaisionally glancing at the walls of Dorucortorum as their chief had ordered them. They exchange a few jests and chuckle amongst themselves. Then one turned to glance away from the town. He stood, and gestured to his men to be quiet. A faint rythmic swishing sound, curiously overlaid by a sound something like a waterfall in icy weather, drifted in from the south side. Or was it the north? The gauls become concerned. Were spirits at work in the mist? The hardy gauls place their hands on their sword hilts and bunch together. That sound again! It draws closer. Fearing to made fools of, they choose not to rouse their fellows asleep in the tents. Then, out of the mist, line upon line of roman shields emerge. Romans!

Its partly right. The centurion is too busy leading from the front so his second-in-command, the optio, must ensure that the men remain in formation whilst the centurion is busy stabbing barbarians. I doubt he used a vine staff on the battlefield - he might require his sword without warning, and the use of a flogging instrument isn't necessarily going to achieve anything positive in this situation. Now thats my interpretation of roman centurial command, so its open to debate.

Yes, dice were used in gambling games throughout the empire, though I haven't a clue what the rules were. I can imagine that from time to time new board games were invented and played in certain regions for a period of popularity. There was also a game where two men faced each other and had to guess how many fingers the other man had outstretched. Romans were usually very physical about their competitiveness, so fit young men would rather wrestle, run, race horses/chariots - or perhaps even take the plunge and sign up at the ludum. In fact, like their greek forebears, many roman sports had military roots.

Are civil wars more shameful than conquering another mans land?

A simple concept like the 'transmigration of the soul' covers many old religions, including christianity. The nature of the transmigration is therefore more important and may well be very different indeed - I've not had time to look deeper into this - perhaps someone else knows more? Its rather like the author has taken out the detail until he can establish a similarity, whethr one existed in th first place or not. Lets remember that a primary reason for religion existing in the first place is fear of death. The concept that a man simply ceases to be is a bit disturbing for many of us - we generally like a cosier image of the universe around us where something of our former life survives - which is the main selling point of organised religion. Sign up and pay your dues, in return for which you get a ticket to everlasting paradise. It all comes across as a bit dubious (it often is) because the average person has a very poor understanding of spirituality, something exploited by quick-witted orators since human beings invented religion. Celts and Hindu's speak languages with common roots however, thats already established and reflcts the expansion and diversification of primitive human tribes into new area's in the search of resources and survival. Its therefore possible that there is indeed a common root in religious thought, though I would point out that many religions and mythological beliefs do not survive for long periods before a stronger culture imposes its own belief structures.

The roman approach was likely to be different. Provided they had time, three roman cohorts would have built a wall across the pass. Such obstacles were effective. When Spartacus broke out of the toe of Italy, his total casualties numbered in thousands for a handful of roman legionaries, at least according to the sources which probably exaggerated somewhat. That sort of defensive battle is something the romans were good at, but much depended on who the commander was. With someone of Caesar's or Scipio's potential then the romans would have fought well. They certainly weren't scared to take large numbers - witness the battle against Boudicca's rebels were the romans were substantially outnumbered (and without the benefit of a defensive palisade). Given that, I think the romans would have done quite well. They would still have have lost in the end. The seleucid persians were no walkover as the spartans found out, and whilst the spartans were no mean fighters, they were not as team oriented as roman legions, which I think is an important consideration.