caldrail

Caesar I salute you. My three legions will be The I, II, and III Legio Augustus Magnus in your honour. *pssst* Manlius, how much money have we got in the till? Oh dear....

Very subdued I think you'll find. Nero was kept in place by his mother, a very strong willed woman who wanted Nero as an obedient son for political purposes. If you notice, Nero's early reign is largely a growth of his independence from her. He consorted with a greek slave-woman, Acte, whom Agrippina loathed. He wandered about the city at night with his jack-the-lad mates, beating up passers-by and womanising, just for kicks. It was almost a teenage rebellion against his strict public life, a growing sense of his increasing self confidence, which was always a little shakey in the early half of his reign and the cause of his panic when the senate turned against him. Nero has this image of wanting the bright lights, to be adored by the public, a man whose childhood had probably seen little love or happiness.

Diagnosing ancient ailments isn't easy. The writers of the time are prone to exaggeration and inaccuracy. This means that all sorts of wierd afflictions get put forward - like with caligula's apparent illness for instance. Regarding Sulla, it reminds me of a program I saw on TV. It was about a vet in africa on a game reserve, and one antelope was in a bad way. A wound was infected by some very nasty maggots who were literally eating the poor creature, leaving a ghastly open crater in the animals back. Its tail was ready to fall off. Horrible. Had Sulla been in africa? Or had something like this passed by him? Its always conjecture and no diagnosis seems to fit the description exactly.

In a sense, the appearance of cataphracts and clibinarii was an ancient arms race. The balance between Armour/Weaponry/Mobility that we see so accentuated in modern AFV's was in its infancy then. These early experiments weren't always succesful - I'm thinking of the heavily encased rebel crupellarii that were pushed over and their armour hacked open with pick-axes by frustrated legionaries. I sense an element of this was the story of that ill-fated charge by cataphracts, where the infantry simply opened their ranks, let them in, then unhorsed them and bye-bye... The cavalryman is potentially very effective. hje has weight and mobility on side, plus the higher position of the rider gives him the higher ground. The approach of cavalry is intimidating, so infantry close up and attempt to present an inpenetrable barrier to prevent being overrun by the horsemen. Like other periods of military history, there's a balance to be met amongst troop types. Who has numbers? Who has weight? Who has penetration? Who has speed? Who can do the most damage? Who can intimidate more? And never forget, who can organise a better strategy?

Well Caesar, I see much puffing of chests and grandiose claims. I even notice a woman attempts to lead Romes finest. Whatever next! I've heard tales of wives nagging commanders to drill men on parades, but this! I on the other hand have genuinely led military men on campaign. I have stood at the rear of mighty armies issuing orders for the glory of Rome once or twice. Yes, it is true I lost the Battle of The Narrow Unnamed Pass, but is it not truly said, that we all learn from our mistakes? I will not regale this honoured company with exaggeratted stories of victories that exist in the imagination. Oh no, for I have suffered both the sweet taste of victory and the utter humuliation of defeat. I commend myself Caesar to the command of your army, by virtue of many years of military study and practice at the head of armies of many nations.

Only in the public eye. His 'image' was everything in roman politics.

Nero's reputation as a 'star' lived on. I don't remember the name of the individual, but there was a slave who had a passing resemblance and pretended to be Nero himself. It caused a bit of a stir and a popular uprising had to nipped in the bud, though in the end it was only worth a historical mention.

Bah! Macer is fat and unfit, an old man living on past glory. Aghatocles I fear will only succeed in rendering our army drunk, since no legionary can easily be parted from wine! No, Caesar, you need the aggressive instinct of a successful businessman born of a proud military family (Ralla sticks tongue out)

She wanted power. The most convenient method for her was to ensure her son, Nero, became emperor. Nero, as something of a mummy's boy, would do as he was told. That was the plan, and I'm reminded of a stone relief from turkey which has Agrippina fussing over Nero, and also coins from that period show them with equal status.

Well, despite his 'rock star' lifestyle, Nero wasn't a pleasant personality. The christians got a rough deal but then you have to realise the nature of their faith lent itself to persecution. They were divided amongst small secretive cults, all worshipping this judaean god (and not the emperor!), whose practises were rumoured to be cannabalism and drinking blood etc... All very disturbing to sane roman ears. There is of course this possibility that a few disaffected jews/christians did in fact commit an ancient act of terrorism that night as their way of striking back at the 'Seven Headed Whore of Babylon' (The seven hills of Rome?) but there's no definitive answer. Nero helped relief efforts out of duty to his citizens. He had a melodramatic side to his character and no doubt felt he should do something - 'My people need me!', and his self importance would never allow him to sit back and allow someone else to gain political influence by doing all the rescue wotk while he sent a message of sympathy from Antium where he partied with friends! He really felt threatened by the public mood didn't he? Such was the opinion of the plebs that he found a scapegoat - and that sort of thing is definitely within Nero's character.

I fell for the symbol? I'm only mentioning that the inca's did wholesale and pointing out that vikings are a potential source of the legend. Thats only because of the vikings extraordinary sea-going skills which we do know of. That doesn't mean that other europeans hadn't reached american shores before without common knowledge, either accidentially or by design. Columbus for instance may well have known exactly where he was going even if he mistook the destination as another continent. He knew the landmass was there in other words, not what it was. Notice how confident he was at pulling the wool over his sailors eyes. But like the vikings, its only conjecture. Its just something I find fascinating and enjoy discussing. If I wanted to prove the theory, I would have to back it up and to the best of my knowledge, such evidence is a little sparse to say the least.

Marcus Larconius Ralla throws aside a tunic and stands up. In the name of my illustrious ancestors, who fought for Rome, I too would do my bit.

No, it started on the evening of July 19th.

The need for power and status is part of human nature, and as social animals we often compete for dominance. Roman society stressed that instinct and resulted in a very competitive society indeed. Cruelty was common in the ancient world, although it seems extreme to our sensibilities. Life was short and suffering an everyday observable event. Agrippina the Younger was no different, but being a woman, she was at a disadvantage in political life. By nature she was an ambitious character.

He didn't. He wasn't allowed to. Augustus was heckled in the streets by people calling on him to bring her home. It was a rough judgement and many citizens in Rome felt it too harsh. In fact, Augustus did bring her back quietly five years later, letting her live comfortably in seclusion away from Rome. Julia was one of two things. Either a spiteful daughter who gave away her fathers plans for status and attention, or a complete idiot who did the same thing to remain popular amongst her senatorial friends. She was either a mischief maker or was being used by clever men seeking to make capital at Augustus's expense. Her story seems to paint her as something of a dutiful daughter who endured political marriages to please Augustus.

Nero has carried the can for this fire ever since it happened. As an anti-christian icon, symbolic of madness, indecency, and persecution, there have been willing coverts to the idea that he deliberately set fire to Rome. The story is that he wanted to rebuild it and needed some method of slum clearance, enjoying the spectacle by singing about the fall of Troy as Rome burned. Now when the fire originally started Nero was thrity five miles away, in Antium with friends. On being being told of the disaster, he rushed back to organise relief efforts. I seriously do believe that Nero was sincere in his efforts. Although he was getting a little carried away with his own importance, he was nonetheless very keen to be seen as a great ruler, a man upon whom the citizens of Rome to call upon to lead them in times of need. When he eached Rome, he sought out a tall building to view the flames. Totally in awe of the firestorm in progress, another story says that he was so moved he began to sing. I don't think he was enjoying the spectacle in any way. Far from it. That was his city going up in smoke. Also, it should be remembered that Nero could just as easily ordered slum clearance if he'd really wanted to. That wouldn't have made him very popular it must be said, and popularity was actually very important to Nero. As a typical celebrity mentality, he enjoyed and needed that adoration. The problem is that Nero decided to reorganise and rebuild Rome following the disaster. With thousands still camped in shanties outside the walls, there was Caesar marking out wide boulevards - and even worse - appropriating a large area for private parkland and a new palace. His original home, the Domus Transitoria, was damaged by the fire. His new home, the Domus Aurea, was so grand that he announced that at last he could like a human being. The mind boggles. Anyway, some of this rebuilding had beneficial results, as Nero introduced anti-fire building legislation. He didn't want a repeat of this inciident. It might be worth mentioning the superstitious nature of roman society. Whilst one great fire might be seen as a terrible event, another would surely be seen as the will of the gods? That the fire started accidentially is almost certainly true. We know that some individuals helped spread the flames, as if that was actually necessary. This was early summer, a warm wind was fanning the fire, and the city itself a recognised tinderbox. Unscrupulous landlors may have wished to cash in on a disaster. Rivals might have taken advantage to ensure that a persons property went up too. It might be worth mentioning that many senatorial homes on the palatine burned to the ground - these were homes where politics were made as much as the senate, a fact Nero was well aware of and a point in favour of his complicity. Also in the frame are the christians themselves. Nero blamed them for the fire as scapegoats afterward, burning them on the crucifix as lamps. In fact, so cruel was Nero's punishment tht many romans felt sympathy toward this secretive cult who rumour had it drank blood, practised cannabalism, and sacrificed babies. In fact, many christians were obviously innocent of any part in the fire, although there is some possibility that a few disaffected refugees from Judaea committed an act of terrorism. The biblical Book of Revelations, so beloved of prophecy seekers, evolved from political propaganda - it was a call to arms, a prophetic vision of Romes downfall. Is Nero guilty? Truth is, even if he was completely innocent of any part in it he left himself open to criticism by his grandiose ideas and lifestyle. On the one hand, he wishes to help his citizens in their hour of need. On the other, he builds the biggest, most expensive palace ever amongst the ruins. His senatorial rivals lose their homes and power bases, and the christians get burned for their trouble. I don't personally think Nero had any part in the fire. Perhaps some of his associates did without Nero's knowledge. There were too many people in Rome who stood to gain from misfortune that it comes as no suprise that the roman firemen, instituted by augustus himself, were prevented from fighting the fire by threats of violence.

The cataphtract/mongol comparison is intersting because it complements what I've said about roman cavalry too. Light cavalry prefers not to receive a charge from opposing cavalry if it can be avoided, and therefore you get a fuid style of melee where mobility is useful - even a lifesaver. Notice though that cavalry only charge head to head by doing so in open order. To close ranks is to present a barrier to the horses, and not unnaturally, they tend to shy away from collision. Mongols of course preferred not to charge home in any case. As horse archers they could ride past delivering withering fire without risking contact, and by remaining mobile present a more difficult target to enemy missile fire. If I remember right, the mongols used curved swords? If thats the case, then these weapons are adapted for slashing blows - the curve lends itself to a cutting action - which suggests they attacked whilst riding past an opponent rather than simply ride up to him. Given the mongols carried very little protection, it would seem beneficial to avoid melee wherever possible. A mongol charge might therefore be a sweeping movement alongside an enemy formation designed to whittle down his numbers before regrouping for another pass. This hit and run mentality is typical of ancient cavalry action. With the extra string of horses a rider has access to fresh mounts and can therefore remain mobile. It might be construed that these horses were there to offset losses in melee - it could work like that - but notice that the mongols would leave their fresh horses out of harms way, and therefore if unhorsed in melee, there's going to be some difficulty in getting back to the herd. Regarding the cataphracts, we see a different mentality. These men are there on the battlefield as shock troops. Their purpose is frighten the heck out of enemy infantry by making maximum use of their presumed invulnerability. The weight of armour that these men and horses carry tires them out quicker than lighter troops, and this is something that they had very much in their minds. Ancient writers describe them as attacking at the trot to prevent wearing out their horses. Against lighter cavalry then they have a disadvantage. The enemy can simply spur their horses away and leave the cataphracts standing. Since ancient warfare stressed horse-on-horse combat as a necessary stage of safeguarding the flanks of your army, this means that reliance on heavy cavalry is undesirable, and perhaps this is one reason why cataphracts were so often employed against infantry instead. The approach of enemy cataphracts must have been a matter of concern to infantry units, since their weight and reach was a definite bonus in melee, never mind their protection. It all devolves into whether the infantry keep their heads and stay together. Once intimidated and pushed apart, the cavalry assert their dominance. Should ligt cavalry get caught by cataphracts without an escape route - it could happen - then they suffer the same disadvantage as the infantry albeit they fight at the same level. This is of course the major reason for the mongols to avoid getting to grips with the cataphracts until they're tired, when the added protection is less of an advantage.

People don't become mad because they have an axe to grind. Neither were Tiberius or Caligula mad in strict psychological terms. Warped perhaps, not loonies, but there were other reasons too.

Yes, Mastadons. You know, big elephant thingies....

I believe that they wore chainmail, and chain mail is extremely heavy (a mail shirt can weigh 40 lbs, and the clibanarii's armor covered their entire body). I saw a sketch of one (I'm unsure of it's historical accuracy) that showed a conical helmet and a mail "robe" that covered his entire body from his head to his feet. The horse was fully armored as well. Details of individual units vary. Some also wore scale or banded armour too, and in some of the lighter cataphract units the horse was unarmoured. Sometimes this may be down to circumstance - whatever armour was available, repairable, or affordable for instance.

I met a guy in a pub a few years back who told me he was a gnome. Naturally I was a tad suspicious so I decided to enquire further. Foremost in my questioning was the issue was why he didn't look like a gnome. According to the gnome I spoke to, this isn't unusual. Many gnomes are hiding for fear of public ridicule or violence, kidnapping etc. So, I asked, How do you change your appearance? Concrete surgery? No, he said, you just shave and take steroids. Be warned though, because these hidden gnomes are all around us, plotting to take over the world and bring gnomekind to its destiny of world supremacy. Seriously, I heard it from the horses mouth.... But when you think of it, the gnomes lot is not a happy one. They are essentially a slave race, bought in the open market quite legally. You can imprison and torture, maim, and kill these helpless beings with impunity. We let them roam around our gardens but do we ever feed them? Clothe them? Let them inside when it rains or gets cold? No, none of us do that. Think of the hazards they must deal with. Pidgeon strikes are a constant danger, and dogs may well choose to mark their territories on them. What we humans do to gnomes is frankly shocking. I say we must adress the levels of gnomism in our society. Equal rights for Gnomes!

Its unlikely to say the least. He was severly injured by his horse in an accident and there's no account of any improvement. It happened a long way from Rome with roman medical staff in the legion trying to put him back together. Livia may not have been quite the villainess she's been portrayed as either. The romans themselves, usually so quick to point a finger, were merely suspicious in her case, though one wonders if being the wife of augustus and therefore beyond reproach may have had something to do with it.

The cataphracts of the eastern world were influential. The emperor Hadrian experimented with them but Constantius was the first to employ them permanently I believe. Contrary to popular belief they weren't employed in the same manner as napoleonic lancers. Fearful of wearing out their horses too soon, they tended to attack at the trot, not the gallop. Mobility for ancient cavalry is very important, ancient sources describe cavalry actions that flow back and forth with one side or another either trying to avoid contact or gain a better position to to do so. In one action, the cavalrymen had ridden so hard that their horses couldn't move for exhaustion - and that made them vulnerable. Cataphracts rely on armour for protection and it obviously worked, although they weren't impregnable and at close quarters it was still possible for infantry to stick daggers in. Nevertheless cataphracts were an impressive sight, and given that an attack by cavalry can be very intimidating - the cataphracts even more so - it should not be suprising that the disadvantage of slower movement wasn't of great concern. They still had plenty of shock value it seems, and the roman emperors were impressed by stories of the persian cavalry. The cataphracts themselves must have suffered from heat - clibanarii means 'oven-men' and I'm sure that wasn't just because of appearance!. The later heavier sort also protected their horse in armour meaning their mount had less endurance for the same reason. Ancient writers suggest the armour was weighty too.

It got a bit dodgy in Rome though. According to the story Claudius hides in the palace, is found by looting praetorians who then realise they'd found a meal ticket again, and off to the barracks whilst the senate is convinced to let him rule. By the time the empire had heard caligula was dead, power in rome was back in the hands of an emperor. Notice that there weren't any provincial rebeliions or armies returning with an ambitious general at their head. Caligula may have upset a lot of influential people in the city but the plebs cheered him on - they were relatively unaffected by his activities. I don't read of caligula taking much interest in the empire as a whole, aside from being the benefactors of his piggy bank. Therefore the provinces had no axe to grind, caligula was seen there possibly as something of a non-entity or the son of our hero Germanicus, so the change in power caused no further upset. In the lack of an established method of passing on authority the senate gave in and allowed claudius to rule. Thats astonishing. Even allowing for roman exaggeration, claudius was not an ideal roman leader. Augustus was always embarrased by him after all, and claudiius suffered from a lot of verbal insults and mockery I'd guess. He probably did so after he was empowered, although by then the people with malicious words spoke them somewhat more quietly. I would say in the final analysis that the change of power, even with claudius at the helm, was welcome rather than a return to a civil war. It was probably just as well that claudius turned out to be fairly competent at running an empire even if his personal life was a fatal disaster. Addendum - Concerning lead poisoning, this isn't the issue that some believe. It did happen of course. Excess lead can cause senility and Rome had its fair share of senile old men. Water pipes are probably not the cause, as a protective chemical layer forms on the inside of the pipe due to the interaction of chemicals involved. In any case, only the water along the pipe sides would carry any lead and the concetration would be vanishingly small. It has been theorised that lead cooking vessels are a primary cause of lead poisoning, and I would agree that the potential for poisoning from this source far exceeds water pipes. I think the poisoning issue needs to be seen in perspective because many of these emperors were bound to get a bit flakey. They live in a dangerous enviroment where anyone might be plotting their end. They get feted by the crowd, fawned over by courtiers, and need only snap their fingers for some unforunate town to be razed without question. Caligula may well have identified himself with Zeus. Nero did so with Apollo, Commodus with Hercules etc. powerful individuals sometimes do get very inflated ideas of their status as human beings - something I note that Augustus shied away from. Madness? No not really, just losing a sense of proportion. Also, these people get bored. There's little challenge when you can afford anything, get anything, and pretty well do anything. Nero took this to the limit, and his apparently mad excess really is nothing more than a wild rock'n'roll party lifestyle - something that ordinary romans couldn't understand nor experience for themselves. To blame roman 'madness' on a single source is a bit like choosing a scapegoat - there's lots of factors involved in roman behaviour, and the way common people behaved has nothing like the 'lunatic excess' we read of in wealthy powerful individuals. The actions of a few are colouring our opnions of the many, most of whom were trying to keep a roof over their heads and provide for their families.

This is just my two cents, but the crowds of rome seem to give emperors nicknames that they use in these situations. The crowd, typically, does not restrain itself when venting its opinions on the guy in charge. Claudius gets pelted with stale crusts during a grain shortage, or caligula is called 'star' or similar pet-names. These sound utterly ridiculous in english but to unsophisticated latin/greek speakers it must have been perfectly natural. It depends of course on the emperors popularity. Someone like Domitian wasn't overly popular I think (correct me if I'm wrong). From the descriptions given by suetonius and such the impression I get is that the crowd do not call to the emperor by name - that would be familiarity and the emperor wouldn't be pleased by smelly plebs treating him like a best mate. Actually I'm not sure if all this helps but a little creativity wouldn't go amiss. Are the crowd calling to Domitian because they want to honour him? Then harmless and cute nicknames are in order. If they want to revile him, then any association with someting disreputable can give rise to an insult. If all they want is attention, then 'Caesar' is appropriate.