caldrail

Admit I'm wrong? Wash your keyboard out with soap and water this instant young man I still maintain that. The spatha penetrates and stops dead. You don't, you're still riding forward at the gallop. Since the blade is straight it can only be withdrawn along its axis which is impossible now you've left the corpse behind. never mind the soldier you just skewered twists as he falls. Wow! Not bad! For a moment I thought you were going to get the better of me I do understand your point and to some extent I'm going to have to give ground (Oh the pain...the pain...) BUT - You really do need to look closer at how blades and bodies interact, particulary with regard to mad horsemen doing dangerous things. The spatha can be used to impale but thats something best left to melee combat when there's no speed differential. In fact, the spatha is a very unsubtle weapon with no more development than a barbarian sword. Its primary use is hacking because the length makes it less wieldy and inaccurate, and the weight of the blade lends itself to chopping. The blade is not curved and cannot slice, so we won't see many missing limbs or heads, but plenty of nasty deep gashes instead. Is that any less lethal? Not necessarily. But I'm not volunteering to test it. Caldrail 2, Hadrian Caesar 1 Keep up the good work

Apparently roman roads were falling into disuse very quickly, since they linked roman settlements that were also shrinking away. Many people would have reverted to the older paths in existence before the roman occupation since they linked the celtic settlement pattern and in many cases may have been more convenient. There was no maintenance on roman roads after the withdrawal either, although I accept that the quality of construction meant many stretches survived and in some cases still do. Regarding coinage, without roman society the coinage had little value. We see this during the roman empire too - when a new emperor arrives violently the old coinage is sometimes buried to prevent any suggestion of loyalty to the old regime. The coins in effect become worthless regardless of any valuable metal. Something along those lines occurs after the romans leave. Within 50 years the entire administrative structure in britain has collapsed and the coins just don't buy anything any more. Where can you spend them? Who still makes them? With an ecomonical collapse the native population reverts to barter which still went on as it always had.

Its an interesting shift of power during that period, and inevitably, given roman ambition, one that must end in tragedy. There is a point about the story given. Tacitus provides with the most detailed version - at least as far as I'm aware - but there's something odd. That final scene in Agrippina's bed chamber seems to lack some detail. Anicetus comes in with at least two heavies. The maid rushes out the door sensing danger and Agrippina shouts "So you're going too?". Thats pretty much what I would expect. But notice what follows. Herculeius whacks her with a truncheon. No order was given by Anicetus, who either gave the nod or took no further part in arranging her death. That seems a little odd to me. Agrippina must have twigged she was in danger, and given her robust character, I would have thought she'd give them a piece of her mind - which would be why Herculeius struck her like that. It was a violent 'shut up'. Obaritus pulls his sword but does so deliberately. All three men are unwilling to carry this out, it runs counter to their sensibilities. However, Nero has ordered them, and so they must act.

28th GO old bean, any emissaries will be entertained by endless tea and crumpets. Thank goodness you put that last item in the plural, Pertinax. No, no, take the plural off! The americans will think we're British!

Possibly, but primitive societies tend to be very strict on moral issues, and phalluses often mean something else than sex.

Yes, legionaries did patrol. Thats why they were staioned there. Besides, the romans were not about to leave defence to the auxillaries - there was no guarantee of loyalty.

Does anyone know if this is correct? I must have heard half a dozen different numbers about it. No, it isn't. A condemned or purchased gladiator fought until the owner thought otherwise. A volunteer gladiator might sign for anything up to seven years, after which he could walk free (as an ex-slave it must be said). Gladiators might also purchase their freedom at any time if they accrued enough winnings to satisfy the lanista/owner. There always a chance that the gladiator might be sold off for profit for a less dangerous task. However, it is true that some experienced gladiators were made Doctores, or fighting-experts, to assist the training of others, particularly in the last year of their contract. Such expertise was after all a valuable commodity. It is also true that the games editor, usually the emperor in later periods, had the right to free a gladiator if he so wished. To be fair, a gladiator would have had to have made an impressive show for this to happen or people are going to question the editors sanity. PS - to be absolutely correct, condemned gladiators were often serving a fixed sentence. Since the average sentence was five years condemno ad ludum, and the average life expectantcy four, the odds were not good!

Yes, there was a tv program about this two years ago. Very interesting, confirming many details of gladiatorial life and some details previously not realised.

The story goes that an astrologer once told Agrippina the Younger that her son Nero would become emperor, but that he would kill her. She replied angrily "Let him kill me - but let him rule!" Coins of Nero's reign are revealing. They show him and his mother together, as equals. A stone frieze from Aphrodisius in modern Turkey shows Agrippina attentive to young Nero as he goes about his public duty. Without Agrippina, Nero would never have ruled. She had become the fourth and final wife of Emperor Claudius for that very purpose and with the support of influential courtiers won herself the title of Augusta. Through Nero, Agrippina would rule. The youthful Nero began to assume independence. Much to his mothers disgust, he had an infatuous relationship with a greek woman named Acte. With his friends he had roamed the streets beating people up, and if they resisted, stabbing them before hiding their bodies. For all intents and purposes, Nero was having a teenage rebellion. Nonetheless, he had become Emperor of Rome. For such a male dominated society, it was intolerable that his mother would dominate him. The turning point came when her lover Pallas fell from grace. From AD55 the advisors of Nero, Seneca and Burrus, turned against her to ensure her influence over the young emperor was kept to a minimum. Agrippina almost vanishes from the historical record at this point. Nero for his part was becoming tired of her constant attention. Suetonius relates his efforts to force his mother away - The over-watchful, over-critical eye that Agrippina kept on everything that Nero said or did proved more than he could stand. He first tried to embarass her with frequent threats to abdicate or go into retirement in Rhodes. Then, having deprived her of all honours and power, and even of her Roman and German bodyguard, he refused to have her living with him and expelled her from his palace; after which he did everything possible to annoy her, sending people to annoy her with lawsuits while she stayed at Rome, and when she took refuge on her riverside estate, making them constantly drive or sail past, disturbing her with jeers and cat-calls. In the end her threats and violent behaviour terrified him into deciding that she must die. According to Tacitus, his girlfriend Poppea Sabina was nagging Nero mercilessly to get him to rid himself of his mother, for while she lived he would never divorce Octavia. Poppea threatened to become Otho's wife again, and told Nero that "You are not even master of yourself!". She tried everything to get Nero to act and eventually he chose to do so. Whilst everyone wanted Agrippina's domination to end, no-one seriously believed he would turn to murder. An obscure roman author, Clovius Rufus, claimed that - Agrippina's passion to retain power carried her so far that at midday, the time when food and drink were beginning to raise Nero's temperature, she several times appeared before her inebriated son all decked out and ready for incest. Another observer, Fabius Rusticus, believed that it was Nero's desire rather than hers. Seneca brought in the freedwoman Acte to distract him from his mother. At any rate, Nero was beginning to distance himself from her. He praised her for taking holidays away from Rome. But how to kill her? A stabbing was too risky, an assassin too unreliable. Could it be made to look like an accident? His first move was to try to poison her, something he attempted three times without success. Tacitus describes her as taking a course of antidotes, while other stories relate that she had taken poison in small amounts to build resistance against it. Nero then arranged for a way to dislodge roof panels in her bedroom, in order to fall on her while she slept. Agrippina was tipped off by someone involved in the plot. Agrippina shortly after received a note from her son offering reconciliation and an invite to Baiae to celebrate the Feast of Minerva. On arrival, the galley she had sailed in was involved in a collision. This was deliberate, the offending captain working on Nero's orders. When the evening drew to a close Agrippina was keen to leave, and Nero offered her a boat in place of her own damaged vessel. She accepted, and Nero led her down to the quay, where he said goodbye with some intimacy. The answer to Nero's dilemma was suggested by Anicetus, an ex-slave who commanded the fleet at Misenum. At his suggestion the boat was rigged to sink. Not only that, lead weights were held in the cabin roof to drop on the ususpecting woman. Agrippina relaxed on a couch whilst her companion Acerronia discussed her mistresses new-found influence with Nero. Another companion, Crepereius Gallus stood by the tiller. He was crushed when the trap was sprung. The two women were saved by the stout seat that took the pressure of the lead weights. Worst still, the sailors could not scuttle the boat as planned. Chaos broke out on board. The sailors in on the plot attempted to capsize the boat, and the remaining men tried to stop them. Acerronia shouted for help and pretended to be Agrippina. Whether she did that to save her mistress or perhaps as a means of survival is unclear, but it did her no good. She was clubbed to death in the darkness with oars, poles, or any other sailing gear to hand. Agrippina took advantage of the confusion and slipped overboard. Nero was anxious to learn of his mothers fate. His mothers freedman arrived at Nero's residence at Baiae with news of a shipwreck. To Nero's horror, Agerinus told him that she was alive and well, having swum ashore. There was no need to trouble her. Nero panicked. He quietly ordered a blade to be dropped beside Agerinus, accused him of being an assassin, then had him slain whilst claiming that Agerinus had committed suicide on discovery. Would his mother soon arrange violence? After a long and stressful wait Seneca suggested sending soldiers. Nero finally calmed down enough to order Anicetus to finish what he'd started. With soldiers in tow Anicetus went to Agrippina's residence and surrounded it. Household slaves were arrested on sight. Agrippina had heard the uproar. Agerinus had not returned and she suspected that this might be her sons assassins. Anicetus led his men into her bed chamber and she shouted after her maid who promptly vanished out the door. She then told them to tell her son she was safe. A naval captain named Herculeius hit her with a truncheon As Obaritus, an officer, was drawing his sword Agrippina pointed at her womb and demanded "Strike here!". She was killed by numerous blows. By all accounts Nero spent a night suffering pangs of guilt, but it wasn't to last. Freed from his mothers influence there was no longer any restraint on his behaviour. Once he had been ruled by his mother - now he was ruled by his ego. The relationship between Nero and Agrippina the Younger remains controversial. She was without doubt a very manipulative woman who allowed her son to become over-familiar. Agrippina's familiarity was always going to be the problem. She used her charms without hesitation - rumours of incest with Caligula, affairs with Lepidus and Pallas, and then a somewhat dubious marriage to Claudius. Nor was she above murder herself, as the death of Claudius was at her instigation. Where Agrippina failed in her desire to control Nero's behaviour was the influence of his advisors. They did nothing to restrain him. Nero was not a spoilt child in the sense that we would recognise, and indeed he seems to have been aware at an early age that his survival depended on his mothers protection. In her defence, she generally remains a figure of influence behind the scenes. As his mother she knew Nero intimately and was well aware of his character faults, nonetheless she persisted in attempting to curb them in order to retain some measure of public respectability. It may well be she had the best motives for this given his later actions, but her methods were courting public controversy and just about everyone was egging Nero on to be rid of her, to cut the apron-strings. In AD59, he did so with murderous finality.

Commodus was not wise or virtuous in the slightest. He let others run the empire and turned to his own jaded pleasures, mostly concerned with butchering animals in the arena not to mention a fair few gladiators. He was left-handed and very proud of his ability to fight in such a manner. The praetorians were pretty much allowed to do what they wanted - which meant very little except exploit their position. The freedmen who took care of administration were embezzling cash like nothing else. Nothing was done to prevent it. Mild-natured? Sorry, I think you have the wrong Commodus. Here's what others have to say.. ....Our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the romans of that day.... Cassius Dio ....He inaugurated a reign of terror, had friends of Marcus Aurelius executed, and let others govern on his behalf in order to give himself over to debauchery.... ....While Commodus took no interest in anything but chariot races and gladiatorial fights.... ....Conspiracies real or imagined, murders, favourites, concubines (especially Marcia), and intrigues formed the political fabric of these years. Commodus increasingly revealed signs of a religious mania whose symptoms had appeared early in his reign.... A History of Rome - Glay, Voisin, Bohec ....Commodus then inaugurated a reign of terror, which involved the exile and execution of his wife, Crispina.... ....In AD189 he made Cleander the scapegoat for a famine engineered by a jealous official, and had him killed to appease the angry populace.... ....He may be compared to NERO or CALIGULA for his cruelty and ostentation and to DOMITIAN for the manner of his death and the succession, which was decided by his assassins.... Who's Who in the Roman World - John Hazel ....He demanded from the Senate that they deify him as a living god, sometimes associating himself with Jupiter. His favourite divine persona however was Hercules, and he gave orders that he should be called Hercules Son of Zeus instead of Commodus Son of Marcus, and took to wearing a lion skin and carrying a club on public occaisions.... ....Commodus did not restrict his attentions to his wife, but is said to have enjoyed the company of numerous mistresses and concubines. One story credits him with a veritable harem of 300 women, and a like number of boys.... ....The November Games ran their course, and Commodus turned his attention to another series planned for the beginning of the new year AD193. These were to celebrate the refounding of Rome as Colonia Commodiana, and were to feature the emperor in the guise of Hercules Romanus Conditor (The Founder of Rome). There was another element to the scheme. Commodus intended to kill both consuls elect, then issue forth the next day as both gladiator and consul.... ....Commodus, however, not only failed to measure up to his fathers elevated standards, he went down in history as a positive monster, a megalomaniac who thought himself a god, had the months renamed in his honour, and delighted in nothing better than playing the gladiator in front of the assembled roman audience.... Chronicle of the Roman Emperors - Chris Scarre ....After ten years in power, however, something happened to Commodus. He began to interfere in the running of government and ordered the execution of loyal servants on trivial grounds. He also began to kill in the arena in earnest. His opponents were still given wooden swords and told they were to take part in display fights, but Commodus used real weapons and killed them.... ....Commodus also took part in the execution of criminals. He liked to compare himself to Hercules and would appear at parties dressed as the ancient hero in a lionskin cloak and carrying a huge club. It was in this guise that he took part in executions, using the club to smash open the skulls of the condemned.... ....More unusual was the fact that from time to time Commodus turned round to kiss the slave, his homosexual lover Saoterus. The romans may have been impressed with the Triumph, but they were displeased by the open display of what they considered a vice.... ....The following year, lacking even a minor victory to give an excuse for a Triumph, Commodus had himself proclaimed Emperor all over again and held celebratory games.... The Age of the Gladiators - Rupert Matthews

Well me, actually.... The translation was made by someone far more learned than me, and there's no guarantee that the place wasn't renamed for some reason after AD850. But I take your point. Don't apologise. It was worth posting and adds to the debate.

Yep. Thats what I said. Please continue finding evidence to back my assertion!

No, the gladius was a seperate class of weapon that grew shorter over the course of the empire until replaced by the spatha starting from the 3rd century. Incorecctly the spatha, the roman cavalry sword, is thought of as a long gladius. It isn't, and it was used with a different style. The longer blade favoured slashing attacks, an important consideration on horseback.

Yes they did - An interesting diversion for an evening. It had curiosity value and a certain uniqueness. Oneupmanship if your political rivals couldn't entertain their guests with such originality. For the most part however, they usually kept to familiar modes of entertainment. If you see what I mean

All well and good if you get there. But despite roman hygiene I doubt your average roman legionary on campaign was spotlessly clean, and his enemy might well be worse. By the time the wounded man is recovered - and we don't see ambulances or helicopters back then - the wound could easily be infected. I must stress that medical care is not immediate in the roman world. You go down in the battle and you probably stay where you fell until someone else spots you during the clean-up afterward. There's a field full of dead and dying men, so it might be pot luck that they find you in time. It simply wasn't possible to shout "MEDIC!" and get treatment on the spot.

No, I think you simply misinterpret the cavalry drill and its purposes. Spears are good for thrusting attacks on horseback - plenty of shaft to hold on to and absorb the impact, and a secondary weapon to rely on when you lose it. A sword? No, on horseback I would use a swing. Horse speed + swing speed = dead barbarian. Both halves of him Thats the purpose of a cavalry sabre - absolutely perfect for slashing and hacking bits off your enemy. Also, the sword will naturally slide off the opponent thus allowing you to continue. The point drill is intended to improve aim and just great for skewering fuits on a pole. Unfortunately human beings are heavy and all too often an impaled person does not give up the sword easily.

Caldrail The Feeling Very Sorry For Himself Thracian wanders off to sober up... Hallo? Who's this lurking in the garden?

There is evidence that some units wore little armour toward the end - but might this be the cost of provision? The amount of money hanging around the late west was not huge.

It is true that roman military medicine was very good for its time, but they had limits, and the best care required the patient to be brought to the equivalent of a field hospital. Many people would have died from their injuries before they could be treated. We're talking about melee combat where people stab you or slice bits off. There's a lot of bodies lying on an ancient battlefield and to get the care you needed some element of luck to be in the right place and discovered soon. Shock and bloodloss were killers. Peritonitis from stomach wounds a slower death, but reasonably common back then I would have thought. Its difficult to give statistics but a large proportion of the casualties were goners, either on the field or within a few days. Even with the care, there's no guarantee you'll pull through. Enemy swords are not really the most hygenic implements.

Your horse is at the gallp - whats that? 30, maybe 40mph? You plunge yoursabre in and yes, it will penetrate given the speed and momentum behind it. But thats the problem! The guy you just skewered falls over - well he would really cos you just killed him - but the sword is buried in him. He starts to fall over but you're still galloping at top speed. By the the time he's fallen you've passed him by yards - and the sword, having stuck in him at a certain angle - is still at that angle inserted in his torso. It just isn't possible to hold on to the sword in these cirmcumstances. If you were riding slower then possibly, especially if he was running away from you. HadrianCaesar - I'm not getting at you or talking BS - if you really don't believe me then arrange with mate to stab something reasonably large, heavy, and solid out of the passenger side of a car driven by a mate. Pleaase arrange medical assistance beforehand - you will get a shock.

Caldrail the Inebriated Thracian mistakes the pizza for a weapon and takes on the delivery slave in an impromptu display of gladiatorial expertise...

This sort of debate has raged since the dark ages. St Augustine took the view that people are only human and will sin anyway - as long as they obey the priests and turn up to services all will be forgiven. Pelagius took the view that to be chrisitian you needed to be a christian - it was no good simply calling yourself one. Needless to say Pelagius was declared a heretic and disappeared suspiciously. My sensibilities are firmly pelagiastic - which is one reason why I reject christianity as hopeless hypocrisy. But then I have my own beliefs as I previously mentioned and those are based on my own experience, not someone elses demands. Luckily, we live in an age were religious differences are tolerated in many places in this world. Its a shame there are some cultures that are so offended by alien beliefs simply because they do not fit in with their closed society.

Aha! A Babe! Caldrail the Inebriated Thracian cannot make out who it is but stumbles in front of Northernus Nielius who falls into the arms of an elderly matron. Not deterred, Caldrail grins wildly as he forgets the subtleties of cat litter....

I've given that some thought. The events that happened in AD193 were unusual even for the romans. Prescennius Niger and Septimius Severus were co-consuls previously just the same as Pertinax. Sulpicianus, and Julianus had been. All the leading characters in this deadly farce were experienced politicians. When the power vacuum was spotted, all of them made a play for it in one way or another. Thats typically roman. Their society was geared toward political success and the military glory that preceded it. Young men of good family were brought up to compete in a society known for its cut-throat cultural arena. There are two points in this episode that make it stand out. On the one hand, the Praetorians did not plot and scheme to replace the emperor with someone more suitable. This was a knee-jerk reaction, a display of discontent by undisciplined palace guards. They killed Pertinax in a drunken rage without any plan to replace him. To be fair, it should be pointed out than in most other cases it was only a small number of praetorians, usually involving their prefect, who would plot. On the other hand, the throne was not given or taken as romans tended to do - it was bought. Although the deal was never completed the act was done in public and for that reason impossible to sweep under the carpet. As often happens, 'bad' rulers like Commodus breed an atmosphere where other men jostle for position to assume the throne at the earliest opportunity. Pertinax? Well to those governors out in the sticks he was an old man put in to smooth things over. He was not the man to hold on the throne when the others had legionary support. Niger was the popular choice of italians. Severus was a respected commander with the backing of a sizeable portion of the roman army, which more than made up for his lack of political support. Albinus was more of an opportunist I think but notice that Severus bought him off quickly. He knew Albinus was likely to go for it. Whats this? That roisterer Julianus has bought the throne? Who's he trying to kid? He's only got the praetorians behind him and who can trust them? No - I don't think the seeds of later anarchy were sown here. This episode was a symptom of the roman malaise but made worse because no-one had expected Pertinax to be cut down like that without a successor waiting in the wings. Given similar circumstances, this episode could have ocurred at any stage of the empire. It really was down to political opportunism in typical roman fashion. Severus, with a more astute approach and a much bigger army, was well placed to assume the purple.

Its interesting that Germanicus was hailed as a war hero, yet many commentators believe him to be an indifferent general. Possibly Germanicus was a 'safe' general like so many in roman service. A man who didn't like to take risks, who showed caution. This is one of thereasons for roman military reverses I think, since history has shown that risk-takers very often make successful generals. Risk-takers are more likely to throw their reserves into the fray at key moments and swing the day in their favour. Who dares wins perhaps? On the other hand, I see Germanicus as a commander still developing the skills of his trade. He was gaining experience, such an important quality in warfare. Yes, I agree, he had victories to come, but possibly never great ones.