caldrail

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.

I'm not sure the optio carried a 'staff' as you seem to understand it. They did carry a vine staff for punishing soldiers, such as those talking in formation or those dropping out of the march. Whilst such a staff might cause considerable discomfort, I'm not sure it was much use on the battlefield.

The late republic was a turbulent time and being a politician must have been a risky business. Many senators died in proscriptions for backing the wrong side, or simply owning a better villa. Whilst there are always going to be ambitious men and risk-takers in any group, I get the impression that many senators of the period were getting very wary about being outspoken. Indeed, that was part of the point of the proscriptions anyway - the people dealing them out, besides those with larcenous motives, were taking out the troublemakers and leaving a much-cowed senate in place. At least in theory anyway. Also I suspect many new senators brought in to fill the numbers were supporters? What you have in the late republic is factional politics, a power struggle very similar to a gangland war in many respects.

Agree completely. To quote 'I Cladius' - "When someone dies, so much is lost". Its not just the relationship with our loved ones, but the experience and memories. One of my relations does this family tree stuff, and although there's some tantalising glimpses of the family I belong to, the truth is they're all names. Their character, their life - all gone apart from a few terse records in various documents. I think families should do more to remember who they are and where they come from.

Agreed. Population expansion across the sea is no more unusual that by land. Its notable that once the means exist, human beings exploit it to find new territories even at extraordinary risk. Ocean going craft are probably older than we realise and the technology to sail has not been a constant development. I'm thinking of Thor Heyedahls experiments in papyrus rafts across the atlantic (though this doesn't prove the actual journey took place in ancient history) or those incredible massive ships the chinese built, only to give up exploring before the europeans arrived in the pacific.

Its probably a little pretentious, but then I suspect many people knew stories of the roman empire from their elders and regarded it as something of a golden age, a better time, particularly since life in the dark ages was often much less secure.

no, you didn't protect the man on your left. Your shield protected you and your own left side. The man on the right had an open 'weapon' side and therefore was less protected there. No, the man on the right side was simply unlucky to part of the formation there. Getting your best men on the right is perhaps wasteful and over-complex in practice. The romans were very keen by policy to protect their best men until the last moment, preferring the majority of casualties to be taken from the novices. This isn't strictly correct according to Vegetius, who records that the first cohort (double strength unit with the elite men of the legion) was always posted on the right side of the line in order to safeguard the flank. Thats the only source that suggests this happened, and it must be pointed out that Vegetius was writing long after the legion of this size had been superceded, and that the man himself had little military experience.

To enlarge on some of the points raised above - Suetonius is a primary source for the principate period. Unreliable? Well, roman historians are notoriously biased and lets remember they were expected to be storytellers first, that their audiences wanted to be entertained with stories of their ancestors. Inevitably, the wilder tales get the headlines even if they're misunderstood or even made up. is Suetonius any worse than other roman writers? No not really, not when you consider how much fiction has been identified in the pages of the Histories Augusta, another primary source for a later period. Certainly a lot of stuff got left out. Thats why we spend hours debating subjects like this. Caligula, for all his despotism, remained very popular with the masses. He was after all the son of Germanicus, a war hero, and followed the dreary Tiberius. In fact, many people welcomed his colourful rule though I suspect they weren't the ones Caligula upset. The man himself was unable to restrain himself. He had complete power over peoples lives and used them for his own entertainment, testing the limits of acceptability. He seems to have a very cruel sense of humour, and Suetonius records the instance when three senators were sent for, kept waiting all night in the palace in fear of their lives, then given a song and dance performance by Caligula himself. Nor does he respect life - on another instance he was fencing with a gladiator with wooden swords. The man fell over deliberately to allow caligula to 'win', but the emperor then drew a dagger, stabbed the prone fighter to death, then ran around waving a palm frond as a victorious combatant. Then of course he had also tested his own poisonous concoction on Columbus, an injured gladiator. If there was ever a case of 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' - it can be applied to caligula. His undisciplined personality was wholly unsuitable for power and he used it as his own personal plaything. Thats not madness - thats just an immature guy way out of control.

Good lord no. It was a religious symbol, a display of the legions spirit. No signifer was going to break that in combat! But then... if you're carrying one and no other weapon to hand.... Soldiers are practical people. If Caesars troops gave ground he would often rally them in person, catching individual fugitives by the throat and forcing them round to face the enemy; even if they were panic stricken - as when one standard bearer threatened him with the sharp butt of his eagle and another, whom he tried to detain, who ran off leaving the eagle in his hand Life of Caesar - Suetonius

The manufacture of scuta probably varied, but given the lack of strength of a wooden edge regarding sword blades, I would expect the rim to have some sort of metal sheath even if only a thin piece of metal. Sharpened? Not as a matter of official policy, but I wouldn't be suprised if some soldiers did that. There are disadvantages to doing this - its possible to drop the shield onto your own foot. no, you didn't protect the man on your left. Your shield protected you and your own left side. The man on the right had an open 'weapon' side and therefore was less protected there. No, the man on the right side was simply unlucky to part of the formation there. Getting your best men on the right is perhaps wasteful and over-complex in practice. The romans were very keen by policy to protect their best men until the last moment, preferring the majority of casualties to be taken from the novices. Its not a myth, just exaggerated. In any case, the gap is not a safe place to be in any standard 4:3:3 quincunx formation, because the gaps are protected by an overlapping unit behind, thus the gaps can easily become traps for the unwary enemy. ???? no, they used swords like everyone else. In the soldiers hand. There is no height advantage in bodies on the ground. Stepping on a body is not a secure foothold and almost every soldier would instinctively try to step over. Notice that roman soldiers were trained to haul their own wounded men back where-ever possible, and the rising pile of bodies assumes that both sides remain fighting flat out in one place. Inevitably one side or another will tend to give ground, although Appian describes a fight between romans during a civil war where the combatants keep pulling back due to exhaustion before rushing in again, neither side willing to be the ones to flee. I'm not aware this practice was standard. There is a danger that a soldier who performed this manoever might find himself pushed over or beaten down by an enemy attack. It may well be that some legionaries did things like this, but remember doing so is a fairly athletic exercise and the soldier must rise to his feet again afterward with all his arms and equipment carried. He'd soon tire himself out doing so.