caldrail

Caligula wasn't crazy. At least not a screaming looney anyway, although it does read that way sometimes. No, instead he was a young man with behavioural problems. Combine that with a great deal of power and you get someone who wants to test the limits of what he can get away with, plus extraordinarily nasty sense of humour. According to sources he poisoned a gladiator named Columbus with a mix of his own devising, a poison he called 'Columbinum', so he wasn't above murder. After all, the victim was only a gladiator... The sort of misinterpreted incident that points to his supposed madness is suggesting that his horse Incitatus should be made consul. This wasn't the act of a crazy man, just a very barbed insult toward those wealthy men who were getting in the way of his fun. From a remote viewpoint, it seems crazy. "Have you heard? Caligula wants to make his horse a consul!" Did he poison Germanicus? We'll never know, but given his behaviour it isn't so unbelievable. But not without help - not at that age. Did he bonk his sister Druscilla? We'll never know, but his relationship was indeed somewhat close. The illness he went through is usually given as one of the causes of his idiosyncracies, but these were in evidence before so I really can't see any connection. As a child Caligula must have been the sort of kid you wanted sent somewhere else. I rather suspect his parents did that too when they were too busy, and over-indulged him as roman parents often did. He was used to attention given his status as a mascot to the legions. I've wondered if the soldiers gave him more attention than his parents, leaving him a very confused young man. Caligula did seem to lash out, to enjoy watching others suffer, to stamp his foot when things didn't go his way. I see him as an immature emperor emotionally unsuited to the role, more concerned with getting pleasure from other peoples misfortune than ruling wisely.

So are those nubian women...

Predating the classic dinosaur is the mammal-like reptile group including such beasties as dimetredon (hope the spelling was close...), the famous sail-back carnivore so beloved of low budget hollywood films about victorian scientists. By the triassic period, early mammals were in evidence, and small furry animals were well established and annoying their dino-superiors during the cretaceous. Its a little ironic that the small size of these mammals was the main reason they survived the K/T event. Later they grew a lot, lot bigger, way bigger than we see today. One african elephant species was twice the size of a modern pachyderm within the last few million years. Oh boy. The romans would have loved that one!

No, I'm not inventing history, merely passing on what the inca's said to the conquistadors. They welcomed them with open arms because they truly believed the legend of a returning king was happening right there and then. Of course the mystified spaniards simply made the best of it and took whatever they wanted anyway. You're right, the viking voyages were remarkable, and no-one actually knows just how far they got. Persistent rumours of colonies in america are not just internet fodder, there are people reearching that sort of thing as I speak, and I note a south american legend (somewhere in the amazon though I admit thats a pretty big area) of a white-skinned tribe. Vikings? Who knows. But its a fascinating concept nonethless.

Hey keep painting, they're not bad. The only thing that really lets you down is details of equipment and clothing. You've certainly been putting my efforts to shame!

One thing I do need to stress is that gladiatorial combat is strictly a roman phenomenon, although its tempting to look for some sort of greek ritual that gave birth to it. I suspect on reflection that the greek arete was blended with roman military virtue to arrive at the first combats, which again it must be stressed were religious in origin, because the fight between two slaves to the death was to spill blood and therefore honour the dead. Boxing, wrestling, pancration etc seem to present in roman life right from the earliest days yet they don't acknowledge this. The first reference to an athletic contest strictly in the greek style is mentioned around 180BC I believe, and such contests only became popular during imperial times and then never really accepted by the general public in the same way as chariot racing or games. Its interesting to note that roman boxing, pugilatio, was very close close to the greek mode apart from the contestants, who became professional slave career fighters much like gladiators. Without the mystique of gladiators these boxers became very brutal in order to win applause, so the adoption of the metal glove was not really suprising. Typically, a roman boxer was recognised by his shaven forehead, a precautionary measure so your opponent couldn't grab hold.

The caveat for roman deserters is that they had better be sure they were joining the winning side. Lord only knows what the roman legions would do if they found one of their former friends handing out advice to their enemies! There is one classic case of desertion in roman times that I know of. At the First Battle of Cremona in AD69, the emperor sat biting his nails (I forget wich one - either Galba or Otho) and amongst his defending forces he raised a unit of gladiators. The two officers who were commanding this post clearly did not take kindly to leading a bunch of slaves - gladiators of all things, a disreputable bunch of social outcasts - and disappeared the night before an suprise attack across a river. The men had a conference when this was discovered and decided to press ahead with the attack. They were ambushed by a very prepared attacking army and beaten back very soundly. Draw your own conclusions....

I suspect there's some deep instinctual thing going on here. Its as if these gnomes are your people, that the garden is your own little kingdom where these sedate beings can fish and smile harmlessly whilst your benificent rule satisifies your craving for status and power in your own back yard. Or maybe some people just like them?

The warrior ethos is entirely the point. Whilst you may be right about the command and logistics of the gauls, the warrior ethos of caesars timewas a tradition rather than a way of life. The gauls no longer lived the warrior ideal but instead used it as a cultural icon. Many of them weren't warriors by that time anyway. Farmers, traders, bandits etc. You could claim that these people were always present in gaulish society - again, thats probably true - but the gauls of caesars time took up the sword somewhat unconvincingly. Like any other army, including the gauls. In fact, its been noted that Caesar was careless and rash about his campaigning. He was hoever, a charismatic and courageous leader who often fought alongside his men and indeed, had a gift for battlefield tactics. I accept your point, but I would add that cultural diversification can increase over time. 'Change' in human societies can involve mindset, lifestyles, technology, interaction, all sorts of things. Romans as a whole weren't so vastly better. They had a considerable advantage in Caesar, who was not without talent for battle and leadership. These qualities in a leader are so important in ancient warfare, I cannot stress that enough. I will concede that roman organisation was considerably better than their gaulish enemies. What must be remembered though is that the roman legions were trained in such a way that they were ruthless and relentless. Even more so with a ruthless and relentless commander. The gaulish stagnation is very much to my liking. A warrior society needs to be dynamic to remain at its peak. The gauls were therefore off the boil, and thats part of what I'm saying. That assumes that a society automatically progresses as Rome did. The gauls were different and weren't likely to progress the same way unless they were taught another mode of lifestyle and mindset, which is what the romans did later. This is why we don't see too many quantum physics professors in Papua New Guinea for instance. Although they adopt western tools and such, they're still PNGinians with the same outlook on life. The main objection to my theory is that of whether the gauls had 'changed'. As I've mentioned, warrior societies evolve. They have to, because the internal divisions will kill each other off otherwise. There is a boiling point at which population pressure and the need for violence erupts outwardly and mass migrations follow. These guys are hard as nails and take what they want in other words. So they are, since they've already been fighting amongst each other for generations. Once they grab their land they tend to settle. There's no-one left to fight. The steam goes out of the violence and the former warriors diversify their culture to exploit their gain. Because they no longer fight, they ain't as tough as they once were. They now have homes and farms to protect, and aren't so keen to wander off in search of a good fight. I see this sort of thing in many cultures around the world. The huns steamrollered across europe and then... what? They all but vanished once they settled here. They weren't steppe raiders anymore. They were farmers. Thats the sort of thing tht happened to the gauls by the time caesar waded in. The gauls weren't looking for a fight, they weren't keen to leave their homes, they were all looking inwardly and reluctant to follow the leader. How far this effect had 'softened' the gauls is a matter for debate I suppose, but I cannot believe the gauls of caesars time were as effective as those that strode into the forum demanding roman surrender.

I would expect that a man who wished vengeance upon his enemies - personal or national - could pray or sacrifice at the altar for the gods to grant him his wish. This has roman precedent, as the buying of bad luck tokens was a feature of roman games.

One of the primary causes of roman defeat in battles as opposed to the campaign is leadership. Roman generals were often political appointees and only after their lack of military acumen came to light would the romans seek someone beter. The romans I suspect were a little overly confident of their mens ability in war. Roman soldiers were capable - they were well drilled after all and trained toward a cruel violent mindset - but badly led they were no better than anyone else. Corruption was endemic throught the legions. Although I don't know of any instance where a roman army was bribed to look the other way, there were certainly individuals within it who might. Soldiers were keen to avoid fatigues and bribing centurions was a way of life. Remember too that in many cases the legions were not acting out of patriotism. They were loyal to their commanders, not the state. Augustus in fact addressed this situation by making sure that legions remained permanent organisations, allowing the development of esprit-de-corps etc. But even then they remained first and foremost the followers of their commander, as the various rebellions and civil wars of imperial times shows us. Another aspect to this is that the roman soldier serves a long time, between 16 to 20 years depending on period plus another four or five years as a reservist. Germanicus had to put down troop rebellions, and Tacitus describes the sorry state of the infantrymen - old, toothless, scarred, clothes worn out and ragged. Ok, some of these things ere improved upon but the discipline of the legions was ferocious and potentially lethal. They had plenty of desertions, and these disaffected soldiers were sources of information to their enemies.

Yesterday evening Channel 4 showed two programs about ancient Greece. The first concerned the olympia festival, the second was featured an expose of athenian democracy and all its foibles. As programs they were interesting, but the first program, the one that discussed the ancient version of the olympics, was the one that made my jaw drop on the floor. Now admittedly I was a complete dunce about things hellenistic, but I had no idea just how influential greek culture was. The modern sanitised view of the greeks accentuates their culture, their politics. Truth is, they were actually quite cruel. The modern olympics are based on he premis that its the taking part that matters, not the winning. Even the last man across the line can receive applause if he makes a supreme effort. Not so the greeks. For them it was all about winning. Each olympic festival was named after the winner of the first sprint race. Physical perfection was lauded and the gymnasium has a greek origin, a place where men meet to train and socialise - and yes, to involve themselves in relationships. Thats all very well, but why does this concern the romans? The roman way of life has a great deal of greek influence, even if well-to-do romans sniffed at such things. The roman baths were also gymnasiums. Besides getting clean, romans could work out or compete in sports. This was especially true of contact sports. Wrestling was never entirely popular in Rome - it was a little bit too greek and 'soft' for roman tastes. Boxing was something different. The greeks originally used leather thongs to bind and protect the fist - the 'soft' boxing glove. This later gave way to a leather sleeve = the 'hard' boxing glove. By all accounts, the greeks were only too happy to watch two men batter each other to pulp and apparently facial disfigurement was nothing unusual. This has a parallel in roman times, where the leather 'grip' originally used to support the fist gave way to the metal 'glove', the caestus, which not only protected the hand but allowed considerable damage to be caused by a punch. Both cultures had exactly the same outlook on the violence apart from one important aspect. For the greeks, young men of any social background could enter the games as a boxer, whereas the romans considered it a sport worthy of the infama, the 'infamous', much the same way as gladiators. The Pancration was a sort of all-in fighting, where anything goes except biting and gouging of eyes (which apparently happened anyway). I was astonished to find that this was a greek sport adopted by the romans, and that many descriptions of fights given in books of roman history were in fact descriptions of greek fights. Now I've always said that the ancient world was a violent place, but I had no idea that the greeks were so closely aligned with the romans in terms of their tolerance and admiration of it. The only real difference is that the greeks pursued contact sports for religious reasons, whilst the romans turned it into public entertainment. This also draws into question the origin of gladiatorial combat. I've always accepted the conventional view that etruscan burial rites started it. There are images of a man with a hood over his head using a club against an angry dog. But then again, weren't the etruscans greek influenced themselves? I've read recently that increasingly the etruscan origin of gladiatorial games seems unlikely - that instead there is some sort of greek origin that hasn't come to light. The cultural tolerance of violence that I always associated with the romans is therefore not unique. It seems to be a facet of mediterranean peoples of that area. Last night I learned something important. The romans were so greek it hurt.

Since you bring the point up, it is true that the massive recruitment base of the romans was one of their fundamental advantages. Time and again an enemy found that if the defeated the romans, they only met more coming down the road. That doesn't detract from roman success on the battlefield - they did win plenty of battles - but lets not forget they lost quite a few too. Far from being invincible, roman soldiers could often be indifferent and unwilling soldiers. Leadership - so vital to success in ancient warfare - was another issue. Rome favoured safe sensible commanders who wouldn't take risks nor return with political ambition and an army to back it. Agricola was prevented from completing his campaign in scotland for thjat very reason. Domitian feared he would become a rival. Sensibly agricola realised he was in danger and refused the triumph he was offered. Perhaps part of this was to prevent another Julius Caesar, another risk taker with plans to take power. Of course such people still emerged. A good example is Septimius Severus, who took advantage of the weakened government in Rome to return with an army and a well executed coup detat. The balance of power may have favoured Rome but it was never inevitable. They failed to conquer certain regions, namely Germania or Parthia, to name two examples. In fact, an ambush in the right place and time could easily have caused Rome a very nasty defeat. After the Varian Disaster, Arminius had the opportunity to wreak havoc on the german frontier. I suspect he didn't have enough control over the tribes to keep a coherent army together on campaign against Rome, or possibly he understood the stubborn resilience of Rome. Nonetheless, that was one ambush that really could have caused the romans a serious reverse.

The only reference to statues directly concerned with Germanicus that I find is in tacitus's Annals, where here mentions that Marcus Valerius Messallinus and Aulus Caecina Severus wanted to erect a gold statue in his honour in the temple of mars, plus an altar of veangeance. Tiberius refused this on the grounds it was inappropriate. The public mood in the wake of the mans death is described as subdued rather than violent.

This sort of thing is the reason why I dislike organised religion. It imposes behaviour, practises, and education on people regardless of individual desires. The politics quickly follow as any organisation with sort of influence is going to attract politically minded people. Christianity, it might be remembered, very nearly achieved a pan-european theocracy toward the end of the 11th century. Its a sobering thought given the way most religious governments behave.

Do you know if there's anything about that on the net Caldrail? No, I've no idea. If I still have the issue hanging around somewhere I'll definitely dig out the info. The upshot is that bipedalism is primarily useful for speed. Whilst its true that animals like the cheetah are well adapted to four legged acceleration, minimal contact with the ground and length of gait is part of the answer. The spine of the cheetah is particularly flexible for this reason, allowing the animal to increase its stride by using the length of its body effectively.

No, I don't remember anything of this gravity. I thought all the hostility was against people like Piso. I will certainly check this out.

No, just incorrect. As for being lazy, I don't have the advantage of an internet connection therefore my time online is very limited. Not lazy, just restricted, and I had no reason to doubt my source. If what you say is true, then I shall treat your posts with the utmost suspicion from now on. Thanks for putting me straight about your accuracy. Oh I'm so sorry, I haven't explained the english language to your satisfaction. By sympathy I meant that the americans saw the third reich in a positive light (at least most of them did) as they were impressed with the dynamic qualites and the organisational ability. Would they have sympathised with the uglier side of nazi culture? No of course not, and they didn't, because we do see elements of protest against them. Witness the chap who got beaten up on stage at... oh but I've already mentioned that haven't I? In 1936, few Brits supported Britain's cause!! In 1936, Churchill was a lone voice warning the British of Hitler and the German threat. By your reasoning, the British were guilty of anti-British sentiment! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Perhaps you're relying on consistent logic too much. Human beings are such fickle creatures. I see. You really just don't know much about the period in question and are relying on totally incompetent source material. Neither do you apparently. In fact, your arguement seems to that I'm crap. That my friend is the sloppiest history of all. For someone who specialises in the roman republic your attitude astonishes me. One of the primary conepts in rhetoric is that a man who resorts to ridicule and invective has no arguement.

No. The veggie diet wasn't concerned with protein, it was just that barley has the property of making men beefier, fatter, and encouraging muscle mass. The layer of fat was considered a good defense against minor sword cuts hence desirable for professional fighters. Gladiators had one opportunity to eat meat and that was the dinner the night before the fight, in which the lanista gave his men a send-off in great style. However, for those gladiators who were allowed to leave the barracks, there was nothing to prevent them eating take-aways with meat in them. What the lanista would have said when he found out is another matter! Roman measurements. And suetonious is referring to the idea that a leader must be a physically impressive person? Nonethless, remains dug up at pompeii and other places suggest that average roman height was 5'4" for men and a mere 5' for women. Sorry Augusta! But at least you may console yourself that your regal bearing is indeed above others! yes. An entire graveyard at ephesus, containing more than 80 expired fighter.

This of course is balderdash... The Iberians, Lusitanians and Ligurians seemed to have been very adroit at laying ambushes, in fact it also seems to have been their primary tactic in fighting the Romans. I would argue that is why Hispania took so very long to fully passify. Of course that's not true, argue that ti is would just be stupid. However someone who knew a lot about the Roman war machine did write that some 2000 years ago and therefor I get the feeling that ambushes wasn't as common as they may seem when you see a chart of battles during a millennium. The romans wrote propaganda as much as we do, so lets treat roman descriptions of their success with a pinch of salt. Ambush is a tactic used since we wore furry swimming trunks and used flint axes. The romans, despite their military acumen, suffered ambushes just as much as anyone else. I would suggest reading Josephus's account of the Siege of Jerusalem, in which the jewish defenders took advantage of roman indifference and counter-attacked, even coming close to killing Titus himself at one point. In fact, Titus was so exasperated at his officers failure to contain the jews that he nearly had the lot executed, being swayed by the soldiers demonstrating their support for their leaders. Anyone - and I mean anyone - can be ambushed if they drop their guard or become distracted. Ancient armies were very good at that sort of thing, and in fact, many battles were ambushes on a larger scale.

Wendel Wilson was the name given - I wasn't around at the time. I'm not talking about the president, it was from a speech given by a candidate in the 1940 presidential election campaign. Not quite a figment of imagination I'm afraid. Nor does sympathy imply support. Thats also sloppy history. Nonetheless, nazi germany did have many admirers, many americans were enjoying its culture abroad. The american nazi party may not have been a political success, but they had plenty of members. The footage I've seen of their rally (including a protestor getting the whatever kicked out of him) was of an impressive size. Sorry, but I'm siding with the authors and researchers on this one. Anti-british sentiment existed. It may not have been a matter of hatred, but the fact that support for britains cause was rarified is notable. Regarding Mosely and the two sisters I've never heard of, why would I regard them as indicative of british attitudes? The american views are well documented, and so are ours. They are different.

Ghetto's existed in rome, and I notice that many provinces weren't so romanised as you might expect. Northern britain was one case, parts of africa, judaea etc. Places with strong local identities and particularly those whose territory had history of conflict with rome. Both america and britain have similar problems in assimilating foreign immigrants and their faster increasing numbers. I would say this was a diluting effect upon roman-ness, much the same way that these immigrants form social groups amongst thenselves with limited contact with the indigineous population. I'm not aware of any particular rioting problem though.

Two legged locomotion isn't so suprising. Reptiles discovered that long before dinosaurs - there's a recent discovery of a reptile (that incidentially resembles later dinosaurs - spooky!) that was featured in National Geographic. Dinosaurs themselves made good use of two legs especially where speed was essential, either in attack or retreat, and their descendants the birds use two legs as standard.

There are some different variables on this. The situation, the terrain, the troop types available. In open land, scouting with cavalry is a must, and where possible the romans did this. I don't think they were any better or worse than anyone else bearing in mind cavalry were foreign auxilliaries in most cases, and at least they were loyal to the general at least to some extent rather than simply a purse of coins. In forests there's little possibility of cavalry scouts proving effective, because they cannot range ahead as usual and in fact might be more restricted than infantry in wilderness. Swampland too inhibits the use of cavalry for scouting sometimes. The romans did indeed encounter ambushes, and toward the late empire were setting a few themselves. Intelligence, as today, is vital to prevent these traps. The only way to get this information apart from your own scouts is to question locals, travellers, and enemy deserters or captives. Remember that Quintilius Varus thought he had good intelligence on the german uprising thanks to the information forwarded by Arminius During a ambush situation, much depends on the initiative and leadership qualities of the officers on the scene. A quick witted centurion might well save his command from disaster whilst a politically placed inexperienced officer, bored with military life and fed up of dealing with all this day to day nonsense isn't likely to react quickly enough. I'm not aware of any standard tactic the romans used in ambush situations, but its probable they grouped and formed up as quickly as possible - if possible - to present some form of organised resistance. The worst case is where the troops are seperated out and outnumbered in melee, because with limited reserves available at the scene it might not be possible to help them.