caldrail

Sorry, but I disagree. I'm sure there would have been caravans across North Africa selling goods of all sorts, including slaves. The Sahara was, as has been pointed out, savannah as well as desert, and not as inhospitable as today. As for camels, Caesar introduced them to Africa in the first century BC. Camel bones have been found in Ostia and there is a VIVARIUM or animal holding area just south of Ostia (for beasts brough from North Africa for the arena in Rome). There is, I believe, a Roman toy camel in the British Museum. Also my characters travel by camel caravan from Sabratha to Volubilis in my forthcoming book... so that proves it! Flavia Not across the interior. Along the coast or the nile certainly, but the romans regarded the interior of the sahara as inpenetrable and horses/oxen/donkeys weren't up to the job. In roman times the desert was well in evidence, and whilst I accept your point about grassland, these areas were found on the periphery, not the center. The only reason nomads were able to survive on the arid border was the presence of oases, these are in short supply as you get further in. There's no historical record of trans-saharan trade that I'm aware of, and what trade existed with more southerly parts of africa was either by ship of egyptian barge. Addendum - The only trade routes that I've found go around the sahara, not across it. There wasn't much to trade on the southern edge and I don't think the romans were aware of anyone living down there. The inhabitants of what is now Chad traded east with a christian nubian kingdom called Alwa, somewhere in the sudan area during the late empire/byzantine era. There is however mention of roman exploratory missions into the desert but apparently all they found were 'troglodytes' (presumably cave dwelling tribesmen) whom they had a confrontation with. Also, dromedarii are recorded in egypt around 150AD, but apart from a few agricultural animals introduced by the romans from the middle east they were not widespread in north africa until later periods. The Roman World by John Wacher has a chapter on roman north africa and egypt, although it emphasises strategic concerns.

Anyone selling beliefs to another is a potential quack. Most religions have a fair few in their ranks and christianity is no exception.

Brutus puts down the panther. The great beast rolls on its side and rests. He hears a comment about a spear in buttocks and almost falls for the gag. Hmmm... a joker eh?...

No not really. If the north african agriculture produced surplus then they could easily feed themselves and seek markets regardless of whether the city of rome demanded it all. Granted there would have been an economic decline because foodstuffs wasn't going to get sold in the shortterm, but I don't read this in history. Africa doesn't seem to suffer the market collapse you'd expect, but then they had a large population and it could survive alone quite happily. The invasion of the vandals doesn't seem to have caused any long term upset either, since they were keen to live off the prosperity of the african coast.

Agreed, but the decision on whether to fight to the last or commit mass suicide occurs when all alternatives have run out. For the jews at Masada, the roman assault had begun and the jews knew they weren't going to take prisoners. For them, a more dignified way out seemed important. They chose their own way of death rather than having the romans exact whatever punishment they chose.

Ahh now this is more like it. Vossler has dedicated a section of text to his memories of the march home. Most of the army struggled homeward in large groups of mixed type and nation, since the risk of stragglers being picked off was very real. So was the cold. Vossler witnesses many people with exposed fingers and toes suffering frostbite and amputation because of it. Very unpleasant, and the worst side of human nature soon emerges. Some soldiers take clothes off the dead as you might expect, but they also do this to others they deem as unable to stop them, leaving them for dead. Any source of food is pounced on and no living (or even dead in some cases) beast escapes the cooking fire. Vossler doesn't say it, but the text suggests that a small minority were resorting to cannabalism. Dead soldiers are used as seats around the fire - there's no longer any room for sentimentality. Villages offered valuable shelter and everyone crowds into whatever buildings they can find. Stronger men form gangs and evict the weaker. Sometimes buildings are simply set on fire to provide warmth. There you have it. The winter of 1812 was no worse than anything normal experienced in russia, but not the sort of place to be caught without protection.

Shaka of course was long gone by the time the zulu's fought our lads at Rorkes Drift. He was something of a merciless tyrant too, eventually bumped off by his own family, a real nasty headcase. I haven't seen any assegai with euro-style blades and that description is the first time I've come across them. However, photographs of zulu's from the Rorkes Drift era show the more primitive and more easily mass produced leaf shaped blade. Also by that period there was a tendency toward elaborate headdresses, even for battle. The idea was that it helped camouflage the zulu in long grass, though I suspect status also had something to do with it as most photographs show the double head ring.

Julius Caesar might be described as an increasingly influential independent politician. An outsider with frank views but a lot of charisma and support amongst the common people. A self made war hero too, so a very colourful character that was not above the sort of military adventuring that gets people hauled into court these days... but then his rivals nearly did that didn't they?

Correct, nothing crossed the sahara. As I understand it, camels were introduced to the region during the medieval period and thats what opened up the interior to travel. It should be born in mind that the sahara wasn't as close to the coast as it is today. Back then, there were areas of grassland or savannah. For the romans, the desert was an impenetrable barrier. It was only the persistent presence of nomads that required any control of this southern border.

Not bad, but the blade is wrong. An assegai had a leaf shaped blade as I recall.

I wonder how much of that colourful unifrorm and bright heraldry was still recognisable at Borodino? Actually one point I hadn't brought up was disease. Nearly four-fifths of napoleons army was affected by various complaints, mostly to do with contaminated food and water. Also, the army thast crossed the Niemen river lost a quarter of its effective strength by the time it reached moscow due to those cavalry skirmishes laid on by the russians, desertions, disease, and sheer exhaustion.

Now Lt Vossler crosses the Niemen River into Russian Poland. Russian cavalry patrols mount skirmishes but refuse to fight head on. The french army is becoming tired. Even as early as August the roads are turning into muddy quagmires. Horses are no longer fed oats but must subsist on green rye, and many of these hardworked animals are left dying from exhaustion by the roadside. Frighteningly, so are some of the men. Vossler loses horse after horse to exhaustion, eventually relying on a tough captured cossack pony. The hot-heads are getting frustrated because the enemy retreat before them, abandoning or burning villages as they go. Finally, Vossler hears a communique read out by his commander. Napoleon says that at last a batlle is to be fought and let it be said that they were there at the gates of moscow. Its well received, although witnesses claim that Napoleon himself seemed cold and distant to passers-by. Vossler enters the battle apparently unaware of its scale. He doesn't even mention the name of the place (presumably Borodino). The Duke Louis Chasseurs are in trouble, encountering russian cavalry that far outnumber them, only to be saved by the timely intervention of friendly artillery. Vossler receives a head wound from a stray bullet and thats his contribution over - he's out of it. Vossler describes the field hospital. Dead, dying, injured, amd maimed soldiers everywhere in primitive conditions. Russian cossacks threaten their security so they must move, retreat. It becomes clear the entire army is retreating. The french army has looted everything they can find and its astonishing how complete the disintegration of the grande armee has become. General officers travel with lowly privates with no regard to rank, unit, or nationality. They all know that russian peasants are murdering stragglers at every opportunity. Vossler witnesses them picking up abandoned muskets and shooting at the french. In fact, Vosslers servant has been told his master was killed by them and leaves for home, taking the horses with him. The roads are frozen and difficult to traverse, littered with abandoned goods and equipment, not to mention frequent ravines. There's a traumatic incident at the River Berezina, a bottleneck with a narrow bridge. The russians know it and ambush the french retreat there, and at dusk, french engineers dismantle the bridge stranding many men, wagons, and horses behind. Vossler is a man of some determination. He mentions the privations of cold and hunger but doesn't dwell on it. What absolutely disgusts him is the french foraging parties, which he must take part in, ransacking civilian homes and farms to provide provisions for the march. He regarded that as something akin to brigandage, especially since the Old Guard receive full rations that were sometimes intended for other units. He even accuses the french commisariat of selling forage for profit. He is undeterred by the risks and even after his injury, he attempts to return to the line. Unfortunately, it becomes clear the game is up and his only recourse is to make his way westward with everyone else. There is no longer any organisation - it would be every man for himself but those russian peasants pick off unwary individuals, never mind the constant harrasing actions by cossacks - including artillery fire in some places. Thats approaching the end of part one - his unit reforms for campaigning the next year. Even after that terrible experience he is willing to take up arms again. Absolutely fascinating stuff.

Just lately I've been reading the translated memoirs of one Lt. H A Vossler, a cavalryman of the 'Duke Louis' Chasseurs of Wurttemburg. Its an interesting tale. He starts as a frustrated young man at his home town, forced by circumstance to work as a lowly clerk but with the urge to follow the colours not far away. He gets his chance, and wangles a transfer to the cavalry regiment. Some action against rebels merely wets his appetite. Then comes the orders from Emperor Napoleon, and eastward he must go. In fact, he relishes the opportunity and there's a bizarre holiday-like atmosphere as the regiment marches across germany. Once in Poland, the land becomes rougher and the inhabitants less to his liking. Seeking comfortable billets and entertainment for the evening is almost a chore now, rather than something enjoyable. Its noticeable that even though he faces a journey of 1200 miles before he returns, he doesn't think about the coming battles. He seems to enjoy campaigning for its own sake, the sense of regimental belonging, a cause to follow. In fact, his men have been warned to avoid contact with french troops because they tend to be an argumentative lot who look down their noses at their european allies, yet Lt Vossler feels in no way inferior to the french line. Although he stays at places that offer friendly comfort and hospitality, his unit must continue forward because of the french units following a day behind. This is as excellent glimpse into the mindset of the period, and I'm looking forward to reading what happens when the russian winter sets in, and that long terrible retreat begins.

Fear not. The shade has passed to Tarterus, leaving only a frightened slave with a story to tell and amuse his fellows, or perhaps to suffer the ridicule of his peers, for the garden is peaceful in the warm night air, save for the gentle hooting of an owl.

Life was short for the ancient world. Disease, accident, violence - all were lurking in the background. For the romans themselves, only 2 out of 5 survived into their twenties. Unlike today, a child was expected to mature rapidly. Perhaps married at 15, a grandfather at 30. For those races without the benfits of roman culture it might even be worse. One thing that comes across from primitive peoples in our day is their realism about the world around them, allowing for their ignorance of it. Since their survival depends on co-operation, they're often very co-operative and social, and even the more violent of them are sometimes suprisingly accomodating. Violence in primitive peoples is usually down to two reasons. Firstly, a conflict over resources. Where survival is important, then the preservation of your food and water sources is vital, especially if a rival tribe aren't interested in sharing it or coming to some arrangement. These networks of violence between tribes linger for long periods of time, following on from generation to generation. Secondly, it can be a matter of honour. Its not just sophisticated societies that suffer from this aspect of human nature, as perceived insults can also give rise to long confrontations and ultimately blood is spilled if no suitable recompense is found or agreed to. For some primitive peoples, the freedom to live life as they choose can be paramount. The struggles of native americans against continued intrusions into lands they regarded as open are very much an example. Similar motives are found amongst the peoples that the romans ointruded upon, so perhaps we shouldn't be suprised at their willigness to defend their freedom. In a situation where it isn't possible to defend, then yes, we do see situations where primitive tribes become nihilistic. Not all of course. Some simply surrender and lose their former pride. And that is the deciding factor. Is this barbarian tribe too proud to lay down arms and allow themselves to be enslaved by Rome? If so, then they must fight. If they cannot see any way of achieving a victory, then it follows they must sacrifice their own rather than suffer the roman yoke. The same attitudes occured at Masada. The jewish zealots realised they stood no chance of surviving, and killed themselves almost to the last man, woman, and child to retain their dignity.

So these autmata are on the same technical level as cuckoo clocks and clockworks. Clever devices, but hardly ancient robotics.

Hero was a clever chap but I wonder if his inventions are a bit exaggerated in our day. We're used to complex machines in our daily lives but lets not forget these are often the design of many individuals working on their associated part, and often with the assistance of machines to aid the design process. We're that much more sophisticated about these things, and perhaps we look at Hero's efforts with modern hindsight and see parallels that really aren't there. I've no doubt Hero was a capable engineer for his day, but the tales of ancient robotics are pushing it. A roman might describe an automaton but we might describe the same things as a statue with a moving head for instance.

The revellers rejoice in their trouble free celebration of all things pleasurable and light hearted. A slave of the house hurriedly skips across the darkened garden to supply another amphora of wine to the second banquet hall, so as not to disturb the good people at their leisure. He stumbles as he sees something in the corner of his eye. A cold wind, a sundued wail - (gasp) A lemure haunts the garden in his tortured loneliness. Wide eyed, the slave grabs the amphora and backs away to complete his task...

More likely because it was a seperate kingdom in its own right, not to mention a province that was held very closely by augustus. Roman africa supplied cereals, olives, vines. There were plenty of arid grasslands and my reading suggests that these steppes were receding in roman times. The north african elephant is now extinct thanks to the romans, and indeed many of the species we associate with lower africa are no longer present for that reason besides any ecological limits. It appears the african provinces were often turbulent, since the various nomadic tribes were never pacified. The romans even tried penning them into reservations with absolutely no success whatsoever. Sounds familiar?

Not really. But look at this chap.... He's a russian strelitz of the early renaissance. Notice the nasty polearm. Thats called a Bardiche. The 'bard' part of the name derives from an old german word barta which means axe or bill (not the financial sort!). For another example, the medieval Hellebarde is what we now know as the Halberd. There's a very strong german connection here. During the dark ages, the franks, saxons, angles, danes, germans, goths - all the warrior barbarian peoples - became enthusiastic axe wielders, usually falling into one of two camps. On the one hand is a short handled single headed axe, or a longer handled two-headed variety that became popular in the medieval period, or its derived version with one blade replaced with a spike. Yet the bardiche was never popular in western europe. It was however in much wider use in eastern parts, and I wonder if this has a byzantine origin. Was your varangian ceremonial polearm an earlier version of this perhaps?

To some extent it depended on the personality of the emperor concerned. Some rulers get very attached to numerous titles and occaisionally you get those dictators who pin mountains of medals on their chests for self-aggrandisement. In rome though some of these titles were offered to an emperor for his benificent rule, his military acumen, or simply because he was popular. I also notice that some emperors adopted titles awarded to their predecessors, so there's also a psychologal need for inheritabnce - a sense that they are the true successors of the last man on the throne, particularly since the many emperors claims to power were straining credibility and their rivals knew it.

Okeedokee the consensus is that politics was definitely in the air when Julia got sent into exile. I usually spot things like that but hey, I'm only human. No honestly My previous uneducated viewpoint was that Julia was a partygirl who embarrased her father so much that he felt it necessary to keep her out of the limelight. The other view is that she was part and parcel of a political faction which may have had the demise of augustus as its aim. What I think is important is to look closer at why Julia was exiled because there's something not quite right about either picture presented. Julia was thirty six when her lifestyle was brought to a halt. She comes across as a fun loving person and actually quite dutiful considering the political marriages she had to endure. I have no doubt that Julia slept around a bit. She was was probably desperate for fun and games after all this public service and family nonsense. Now, if a plot against augustus was actually going on, was she involved? I think not, at least not directly. Julia IMHO wasn't politically motivated at all. In modern terms, she was something of an office girl who stayed up late in nightclubs getting drunk. The important question then is whether her partners were politically motivated, and yes, of course they were, being important men around the city. Now I doubt Julia was quite as fecund as the Robert Graves suggests, but she was probably a little less than fussy when a powerful man gave her attention, something I feel she lacked within her marriages. Does this mean that she was targeted as a way of inheriting power? Its possible. By ensuring Julia was emotionally or sexually attached meant it was more likely this gentleman would inherit augustus's power. Was there a plot against the old man? Actually, no, I don't. I think it more likely that a few ambitious men were preparing the way for their own accession sometime in the future, but then augustus wasn't princeps for nothing and as soon as he smelled a rat, he squashed it. Julia is therefore a somewhat tragic victim of circumstance though one wonders if she'd adopted a more mature mode of life then she wouldn't have suffered the indignity of exile. Especially since augustus told her guards to make sure she drank no wine.

North Africa was the most heavily urbanised part of the roman empire, at least along the coast. The presence of crops and gardens means that the area was well watered by irrigation, wells, or even possibly because the climate may not have been so dry away from the african interior. The trade in animals for the games was particularly important for Leptis Magna and Alexandria, and the last named is well known as a center of learning. North Africa was not a backwater in any way whatsoever. Egyptian stone, and grain in particular, was a valuable resource, not to mention the various native peoples who served Rome as auxillaries, legionaries, or even hated enemies during the punic wars.

No, its something else entirely. Apparently a thracian derived curved longsword in many ways reminiscent of the japanese no-dachi. http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5972

Its an interesting point. Obviously the hordes of lesser functionaries still went about their business even during the principate, so in that sense, yes, politics carried on. Those 'extrovert' emperors however demanded and got their fair share of attention didn't they? Being colourful characters, plus the source of considerable speculation and gossip given their celebrity status, they are infinitely more interesting to write about than a bunch of faceless bureaucrats. Class? Well.. possibly, it is true that the lower classes rarely get any more than a passing mention and as we know Rome was fiercely class-concious. Individual ambition? Oh yes, but that ignores the temporary factions that sprang up over issues, and some of those bumped off an emperor or two in their time. In politics, you cannot act alone. Its all about popularity with the masses and support of your peers. Given augustus anger over his public humiliation then yes, it was. Was there any politics in the background? None that was directly connected I think. It was purely embarrasement at these youngsters behaviour that got them exiled. Augustus was performing a balancing act during his reign - his own personal power vs the dislike of tyrants/kings/dictators. His detractors would pounce on his families wayward behaviour (as the media does now to our own royal family) and given the murderous qualities of roman politics, then it was essential that such scandalous behaviour was seen to be punished. Augustus was keenly aware that he must show an example as much as preach his moral stance. We regard him as a hypocrite for that reason, but lets not forget that his womanising wasn't unusual for male romans and not considered scandalous. At least he was relatively discrete compared to the arrogant antics of his successors.