caldrail

Quite right. Democracy was a privilege to the wealthy classes, and the plebs had little recourse to it. After all, you wouldn't want those menials thinking they had a say in things would you? Dictatorship is something more subtle. Tyrants today are no different than tyrants then. Dictatorship for the romans was an ad hoc political post to deal with a problem that the senate couldn't cope with. It was by nature a temporary post, as indeed roman power was intended to be, in order to prevent tyranny. I think this is false. They seem efficient because the stakes are high and those involved in it have a vested interest in making it appear they are doing their utmost for the regime. However, this is often no more than appearances, and a lot depends on the efficiency, and ruthlessness, of the guy in charge. I agree that such regimes are corruptable because power is strictly defined by the regime and the only way to have more of it than simply being promoted is to buy it. But thats a modern perspective from the experience of one democratic state. I dare say though that the romans groaned about certain consuls as we do our leaders. Popularity is a vital component of democracy - a leader can't survive without it unless he changes the regime - and look how far they go to persuade us that they, and they alone, are the answer to all our problems. In a way, but that assumes the senate was a unified organisation. It wasn't. It was a group of ambitious wealthy men and typically people of that class rather like more power and wealth than anyone else. So yes, if the opportunity was there, then it was inevitable that some would go for it and leave their more honourable comrades fleeing for the exit. I don't see that. Its true that Gaul and Britannia were regions with resources the romans found useful, but gaul was invaded for military glory and the political kudos of it. Brittannia was initially invaded to prevent support for a gaulish rebellion and again for the political kudos. During the augustan reforms colonisation became a foreign policy all of its own. Remote or backwater areas were given little 'capital' cities, little rome's, a sort of politico-economic franchise, each vying for attention and reward by development, and a crucial pillar in the empires success in its early years. It was after all the failure of this policy in germanica, thanks to Arminius, that prevented rome from colonising northern europe. He let his ego get the better of him. In these situations judgement becomes flawed. Although Caesar was enormously popular with the masses he'd upset a lot of colleagues. He was after all a king by any other name. He'd already had marc antony perform a false coronation in an attempt to forestall criticism in this regard, but he accumulated permanent power. This was against a primary concept of republican culture, that power was given temporarily. He was too powerful, and an obstacle to political success for others. Really it was inevitable that he would be killed (or subject to attempted assassinations at least). In many respects Caesar was good for Rome for no other reason than his success made the civil wars end - but the lack of formal succession once the oligarchial democracy was laid aside left the state open to further conflict when the daggers came out. To begin with, they did a lot of good. Augustus 'found Rome in brick, and left it in marble'. The empire was becoming consolidated and it was only the varian disaster that prevented large scale expansion early on. The problem was that this peace and prosperity bred a series of rulers who wanted to enjoy it instead of performing duty. Rebublican sentiment was subverted by easy living. No, because the senate was too divided and too willing to stand behind one of the major factions vying for power. Many were playing it safe, running with the crowd, supporting the major players with armies at their disposal. Without such backing, I doubt any senator was likely to stand in the senate and get enough applause for republican sentiments. It was all getting a bit too dangerous. No, I disagree. Whilst caesar is an enormous legend in his own right, our culture, and even more that of america, is based on republican ideals and law rather than those of dictatorships and autocratic power. People looked back and admired what rome was, at least the more glorious side of it, and in any case cultural inheritance is a strong factor in demographics. It really is amazing just how long traditions and opinions persist. It was if you like an era that was seen as a golden age of wealth and glory that many leaders have sought to emulate for their own ends. There's something buried very deep in our subconcious that gives Rome this powerful aura.

Its interesting that ancient generals persisted with the use of elephants in warfare, even though these animals are not actually temperamentally suited to it. Granted a bull elephant that loses its rag is very indimidating indeed, but then elephants are prone to panic and despite their huge advantage in size and weight they would rather charge along an empty gap than into a crowd. Horses don't like them. Size matters, even if the mahout struggles to make them do what the general insists they must.

No no, its all part of my evil dude persona. They all do this. When things don't go your way have a tantrum, sob, and the do-gooders can't help feel sorry for you. Then its time to pounce! So, without further ado, I draw your attention to the ice sculpture cunningly placed in the room center. Look closer, and you 'll see a rope embedded in it. If the rope is released, the floor of this room, cleverly hinged, will drop everyone into a cellar filled with rabid kittens. Of course, I don't mind telling you this because you have no chance to escape, and I think its time to bid adieu to the elite of Rome.... haha... hahahahahaaaaa.... mwuhahahahahahahahahahaaa cough splutter...

Its not my fault! I never wanted to be a roman supervillain! You don't know how lonely it is out there being evil, nobody wants to talk to you, heroes keep trashing your bases, and all those mindless minions who just cannot do their jobs properly... (sob) Its not fair.... I'm going to get drunk....

Its the limited line of sight, short range of target acquisition, and suddenness of action in forest terrain that makes these things awkward (not impossible) to use. Of course, in a clearing its a different matter provided the enemy is on the other side, but generally, a forest trail is not the perfect terrain for ballistas.

Romanus Darkus chuckles and strokes a white cat. No, Caesar, you never find my secret hideout hidden in the crater of... Doh! Well anyway, you won't find it. look I'm not a spoilsport. You can party as much as you like. Now give me the dosh or i open the borders and let in millions of german dole seekers.... mwuhahahahahaaaaaaaaa

On a practical note, lead was not a metal generally used in blade manufacture, even as an alloy, because it would render the blade too soft. It might bend or fail to hold an edge.

And pay them unemployment benefit with bags of grain.

Romanus Darkus informs you all that unless you pay me ten million sestercii by next sunday afternoon I will unleash my secret doomsday weapon. Hey, lets start as we mean to go on.... Oh, you need a demonstration of my evil power? very well, say goodbye to... Pompeii...

Yes I saw that. I haven't come across any such ritual, and given the normal roman taboo for women appearing naked in company, it seems unlikely. Personally, I think that was done for visual effect unless anyone genuinely knows more about this sort of thing.

Well course they didn't. Roman cavalry only started becoming numerous toward the end of the period, they were primarily used in flanking and supportive roles, generally only deployed head-on against opposing cavalry. Roman cavalry were used for shock value but that does not imply a collision of forces. Remember that the cataphractii/clibanarii were so heavily encumbered that they never galloped at charge speed anyway - it was too tiring for the horses. Obviously. You could argue the reverse is true. Not according to roman sources, although I concede the shock value of approaching cavalry that was used in some battles. Why do you think these frontal attacks took place? Cavalry of this period where usually employed out on the wings to exploit their mobility. A frontal attack by cavalry will stop the enemy infantry from advancing but there's no guarantee they'll break them, and it might cause the cavalry to break off disordered. In the centre, without room to manoever, that won't help them. Predict? Ancient warfare ain't science my friend. Reacted is a better phrase. Infantry react to the presence of cavalry especially if they're heading toward them. Nonsense. That might be standard for armoured warfare of recent times but the deployment of cavalry for an attack ahead of infantry is a harassing move, not a frontal assault. In other words, keep the enemy busy while you get yourself sorted. In any event, cavalry in this situation is not pressing home an unsupported attack - they will be using missiles and wheeling around to threaten the enemy, not waste their numbers in coming to melee that early on. Rubbish. Roman cavalry act on their own initiative just as much as orders from the general. The functions of roman cavalry were almost identical bar horse archers or cataphracts. So you don't believe Tacitus then? or Vegetius? Or Arrian? No, cavalry retreat and regroup at their own cognizance, not the orders of a consul far away on the field (if indeed there's one present at all). :D In my experience, military men shout louder to explain and anyone who doesn't understand gets personal attention. Possibly, but you're assuming its spotlessly correct. I have doubts that your layouts are identical in every case to historical alignment, and in any case, the text format is misleading. This is a text forum so most of us aren't worried if the explanation isn't precise to the last millimetre. It would in fact be better if you made your point in a few well phrased sentences than pages of text graphics.

Yes, this is typical of the projections based on the somewhat simple assumption that the amount 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere dictate how warm the earth is. They don't. Some of these gases are byproducts of sunlight, others of volcanic activity, and a smaller percentage is down to us. It may well be that these projected temperatures will occur, but then they were going to anyway because thats the general trend of our world climate at the moment. Has anyone asked whether the earth is wobbling toward the sun right now?

Wooooosh*crack* "Come here, Gaius... Mistress wants to punish you... You've been a very, very naughty boy..... " Wooooosh*crack* "SQUEAL PIGGIE!" Wooooosh*crack* "SQUEAL HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAA!" Ye gods that slavegirl worked in my own home! She needs to be a bit careful with that whip, Caesar nearly got flogged there....

This is often the reason given for many inner-city peoples, and the subsequent health issues are blamed on this in our society. But I'm just guessing that this Roman fast food was just a hair healthier than meal deal #1, supersized. Though this brings to mind cost: many moons ago, I used to think that, because I was always broke, I couldn't afford as many veggies and fruit. Then I did a cost-analysis, learned how to buy in the right proportion and in the season...suddenly I realized that it's way cheaper to buy veggies and fruit--and not buy so much that it goes to waste!--than to buy mac n cheese and the like. And to be honest, when in Spain the 'authentic' fast food was relatively cheap--like 5 euros--for quite a decent sized portion of food. Bottom line is, do we know how much (roughly) this food was? If you live in a place with meager cooking facilities, if anything, you probably don't have much money to start with...so this 'fast food' couldn't have been very expensive. The question of whether roman fast food was healthier is an interesting one. In some respects, it has to be. The factory food of our day didn't exist then, so perhaps everything might be considered 'organic'. However, there are other issues that say something different. The romans didn't have modern hygiene standards in cooking, lord knows what some roguish traders were putting in the meals, and some of the ingredients might not have been as healthy as we imagine. Roman bread for instance is healthier because it contains plenty of roughage, yet the gritty texture will wear down your teeth unlike our modern day rubber subsitute.

Trouble is, someone thought up a political philosophy and needed real heroes to justify it, to show that it has a respectable and just origin. The image of Spartacus as a man bravely fighting the state to free slaves and set up some egalitarian utopia free from roman tyranny is about the same as saying that Kylie Minogues music contains an in depth understanding of the human condidtion. To be fair though, it wasn't just communist polemic that has made spartacus such an icon. Like Robin Hood, or Dick Turpin, a common thief has been given a noble origin and purpose when all they did really was nick things. Romantic fiction really. That said, Spartacus must have been a charismatic guy and he certainly had a fair sreak of daring.

RW, what is the point of all those text graphics? This is a thread for ROMAN CAVALRY TACTICS. Do you know any? If you want to discuss the Battle of Philippi then start your own thread on it. You may well know a vast amount concerning the Battle of Philippi but I don't care, because I'm not going to spend three days decoding your pictures. Anyone got a Rubiks Cube I could borrow? My brain needs the exercise.

Larconius Ralla presents Doc with the nice purple number and heck, take the slave as well. They were a job lot from Lugdenensis - I can get more. AC, I would be proud to sell you a few but I how could I possibly demand payment from Caesar? Choose one of my slavegirls at your leisure. I notice GO's interest, and tell the slavegirl in the fetish gear to entertain him...

Time Team on channel 4. They presented a program about Doggerland and its inundation a few months back - a topical subject given the current vogue for global warming - but fear not, they got that information from expert climatologists working in that field. Time Team are a light hearted bunch but they go to great lengths to ensure their information is correct and they have some very experiencd archaeologists. The program showed sonar readings of the North Sea floor which indicated a massive river valley linking the Seine, Rhine, and Thames into a single estruary. There's a lot of study taking place of the north sea because there's so much archaeology down there left undisturbed by the encroaching waters. The rate of inundation is frightening, something like losing 700 yards in a week. Thats purely down to melt water. Near where I live is the marlborough downs, and if you look around, you can see places where the ground was carved by the melting ice sheet. Looking at the terrain, its easy to see a temporary lake covering north eastern wiltshire and some very strong rivers feeding it. This area is on the boundary of the ice sheet I should point out, and possibly not quite as high as the mile and a half thick interior around the midlands. There is plenty of evidence for glaciers on the Downs. Sarsen stones litter the area (just exposed rocks basically) and these were deposited by glaciers during the last ice age.

many poorer homes had no facilities to cook, so I guess fast food was a necessity really, and one exploited by traders.

There's a point about roman pronounciation that interests me, because modern english borrows from latin and yet the pronounciation varies from word to word. Now I know english can be a lazy language and the japanese I worked for insisted that it was a bitch to learn compared to some, so is it possible that latin words varied in pronounciation, especially with regional dialects, or was it really a case of getting it spot on like those sadistic public school teachers of old, given that latin only survived through the church and was not spoken as an everyday language for many centuries?

I'm a bit curious about those etruscans. The fact their language is different suggests to me they developed it in seclusion from the native tongues in italy at the time, so is their physical origin from elsewhere? A displaced people? Conquerers? Migrants? or is the language similar but the alphabet they used for reading and writing unique and therefore as yet undeciphered?

The use of thrusting attacks by roman soldiers is dictated by close order drill. There's only a narrow gapbetween shields - a vertical slot if you like - and thusting is therefore the most sensible way to attack without losing formations - or friends. If they used slashing attacks as a rule, then a wider formation is necessary to prevent whacking the guy next to you and the legion loses its shock value in advance. With that in mind, a shorter sword of some sort was bound to be used, and also remember that the curved shield made drawing a sword from the left hip awkward and prone to getting snagged behind the shield. It made more sense to pull from the right hip and that also dictated a shorter sword.

Really? At the end of the last ice age, mean temperatures rose 7 degrees in fifteen years. Doesn't seem such a long time to me, and that was only 8000 years ago. The resulting flood inundated Doggerland (the bottom of what we now call the North Sea), costing europe a landmass equal in area to the british isles. There was the Warm Medieval Period, with temperatures higher than today. What about the Big Freeze in the 6th or 7th century, lasting four years? Or the Mini-Ice-Age of the 18th century? Tempertaure fluctuations occur regularly but some are very pronounced and definitely can change very quickly indeed.

Beats the heck outta me....