caldrail

Clipping.

One of the reasons that public games were so popular in the empire was the availability of meat. Slaughtered animals are now thought to have been butchered for free giveaways - though I suspect enterpising men managed to profit from it.

There is now compelling evidence of conflict in various parts of eastern england, that clearly shows in the absence of celtic bloodlines. Interesting comment about his name - that would imply that, like spartacus, we never will know exactly who he was. The real arthur must have been a singularly charismatic leader to keep his composite army together, and must have been a capable general to have won twelve battles back-to-back without defeat. At least if we can trust the sources. legends like his become persistent because there's an element of rebelliousness in the character that lends itself to dramatic romanticisation. When you look at the literary sources of the time, there are hints that arthur was a maverick. I see him as being given the role of Dux bellorum because he was the right man for the job and it kept him away from the courts of dark age celtish kings?

I thought cavalry used the slightly larger spatha, not the gladius. Anyway, the cavalry usually rellied on spears. One of Caesar man at Thapsus cut the trunk of an elephant that had risen him above the ground. Also the wide blade it's a indication of slashing movement while the sharp point it's an indication that it was also a thrusting weapon. It was dual purpose. Roman cavalry did indeed use a spatha, which was to all intents and purposes a longer gladius, except that thrusting attacks are not so easy on horseback. For that reason, I would assume that slashing attacks from a spatha were far more common, another reason why it became popualr in the poorly trained 4th century soldiery. However - The spears carried by cavalry tended to be thrown and were actually very lightweight. These were harrasement weapons used in the opening rounds of an attack, leaving the heavy spatha to hack at the enemy when caught in a melee or when pursuing if the spear wasn't available.

The corn dole is such a factor then, because the unemployed roman was given enough grain to prevent starvation and bread must have been a large part of their diet. I wonder how much takeaway food they ate? Was it too expensive for them?

There's been a program on TV describing the variations in origin of english people. Using DNA comparisons with europe the object was to determine who their racial/cultural ancestors were. People are only invited if their family has been present for three generations where they currently live, and its an oddity that most people live where their ancestors did, more or less. Its been interesting so far because northumbrians are either danish vikings or anglo-saxons - who basically have the same DNA! The norse vikings went to scotland, wales, and ireland. Meanwhile the danish bunch who went to france later invaded us again in 1066! The poor old celts seem to have had a hard time of it, and the conclusions are that many were dispossessed or simply eradicated.

It was also common practice to make dough at home, then take it to a baker to have it cooked. Most poor people had no cooking facilities themselves which was probably just as well considering the fire risk!

As a somewhat extreme example, during the late republic one gentleman named Salvidius had helped two sides in the contest. He knew he might run into trouble, so just in case held a banquet with his friends in case it was his last. During the proceedings, a centurion burst in with a squad of legionaries in tow. He promptly pulled Slavidius over a table/sofa(?) and hacked his head off with a gladius, informing the party-goers that they should remain where they were. Which of course they did, well into the night, terrified the same fate as the corpse beside them might also happen to themselves.

The resemblance of these historical figures to modern people is very difficult because individually they have different characters and live in different circumstances. I don't think you can compare them directly, but perhaps you could as general archetypes. Caesar may have changed Rome by setting a precedent but then so had Sulla before him for different reasons. Rome was changing anyway, and people like Sulla and Caesar were products of their time. In fact, their rise to power indicates two things - the ability they had, but also that the status quo was no longer sufficient. A popular quote is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well there is some truth in that, but it does depend on the personality of the autocrat as to the extent of corruption. Rome was a corrupt society anyway. Bribery was commonplace and political violence a feature of the late republic onward. When you think about emperors, it might be an idea to step back and look for similarities in culture rather than individuals. In fact, its easy to see the empire as something akin to the mafia, and its leaders as gangland bosses. You see what I mean? Ok, they weren't actually criminals (no, I take that back, some were ), but the group ethos that they were part of ran pretty much the same way. Also, we have to realise that powerful autocrats tend to have similar personalities that fall within a number of stereotypes. Its impossible to get away from that because at the end of the day we're social animals. So for that reason its possible to see similarities between the caesars and the modern dictator.

The jerusalem/masada supply line was a constant stream going either way. Its estimated that four hundred donkey loads arrived each day. They wouldn't arrive as one convoy, but as groups of animals led by handlers before unloading and returning.

I understand where you're you're coming from, but I think you need to realise that there's different styles of swordplay as well as different weapons, which all add up in conjunction with the tactical deployment of the men using them. I agree with what you say about duelling. However, the romans found that swinging a sword around leaves you open to thrusting attackings that do actually put the enemy out of action fairly quickly. Even a good swing with a slashing attack might not. The gladius, used in its intended stabbing mode, allows a more precise and quick method of despatching your foe. During the republic, as Polybius makes clear, the emphasis was very much on thrusting. Troops are shoulder to shoulder with heavy shields carried on their other arm. Slashing attacks in these situations are going to be difficult and may well uspet or injure the guy next to you. There isn't room to swing. In open order the situation is different, but roman heavy infantry didn't usually fight in that formation. Slashing attacks become more popular during the empire, and I think this may well be one of the reasons the gladius became shorter, because the men using them had less room to act than their brawny barbarian foes. The gladius is indeed versatile - no disagreement whatsoever. In the heat of battle during a confused melee it might easily be that romans resorted to swinging the gladius about wildly - I would regard that as a failure of traing and morale because it hints at desperation. A calm well trained legionary knew his business and how best to achieve his ends. His training had taught him to stab rather than swing. His situation was likely to make stabbing the best attack mode of choice anyway.

Villas would tend not to have outward windows for peace, privacy, and security. Upper floors are a different matter.

From another post... I don't know of any accounts of these meetings but the information has definitely come to light in the research of historians and archaeologists. It isn't something that has been picked up by roman commentators either, who might not have felt that foreign merchants visiting was particularly interesting. Rome after all thought itself the center of the world and seemed to wait for the world to come to it, rather than go out and explore. An intersting aside is that Trajan was on the march in the east at the same time as Pan Ch'ao's expedition to Parthia. They came very close to meeting and no doubt was the reason the parthians were keen to prevent the romans and chinese from linking up.

Its highly likely that the urban cohorts were originally reassigned Praetorian Guards, themselves a combination of the praetorian cohorts that guarded the generals during the late republic. If used as police, then they were very much of the military police in nature.

Then why not draw up a list of potential topics, and allow the members to complete essays or whatever on the subjects on a more informal basis? No need to allocate subjects as such, so there would be a small competitive edge to it. best work goes forward as it were, or even combine work from different authors at a later date depending on which points they covered. In this way people can write at their own pace and cover subjects they wish to. Of course you could always ask someone to put something forward for unpopular themes.

Like many dictators past and present, Caesar met a violent end. I'm not sure if he deserved to die, as we're judging things from hindsight. He was after all a very popular man with the plebs. It was men among the senate who saw him as a threat or an obstacle to their own success who decided to bump him off. When you look at it like that, the assassination wasn't so well-intended. Besides, he was no worse than many caesars who followed him. He simply paid the price for getting in certain peoples way. Notice that after the deed was done the assassins failed to arouse any sympathy or support.

An interesting perspective, but the word 'sword' dates from a later time than the roman empire. More revealing is the fact that the word 'gladius' also means 'penis', and therefore is a descriptive title to suggest a penetrative thrusting object.

It wasn't to any great degree. By that stage resistance had almost finished. Remember that the jewish revolt wasn't a national effort, more the efforts of zealots to impose their creed on judaea and remove roman occupation. It was sectarian violence like we see today, the difference being that the roman army doesn't bother with policing or peacekeeping duty like modern armies. It simply marches in and crushes resistance. However, a modicum of infantry guards or cavalry riders may well have been employed to keep an eye just in case. I haven't seen that recorded anywhere though and the impression I get is that the supply of the Masada besiegers was not under threat by that stage.

No, though it can be used as such. Polybius describes the republican army as being very strict on thrusting attacks, and this was the time when the gladius had a longer, more vicious point than later periods. Livy on the other hand describes the gladius as being used equally for thrust and slash, which ties in with changes in the swords shape. The point had been reduced in length and the blade straighter. It suggests a slackening in training, the influence of gladiatorial doctores who occaisionally were employed to teach swordplay to legionaries. Noticeably, the gladius gets shorter over the imperial period until the 3rd century when the inexperienced replacement armies no longer had the skill pool to train people effectively in the use of the gladius. At this point, the longer cavalry spatha looks a better bet to most legionaries and it gets adopted in large numbers. The thrusting mode of the gladius is its primary attack. A barabarian rushes in screaming his nuts off and swinging a sword wildly above his head. Its designed to frighten the enemy, because a hesitant warrior is easier to defeat. The romans of course learned not to be put off by that, and stab when the warrior pulls his sword back for another swing. The warrior probably has no shield nor can he parry the thrust at close range with his sword pulled back, and he suffers a wound. Chances are he'll go down, unless the wound is superficial.

Which drink are you referring to?

Caldrail creates a mess when he discovers the biscuit barrel.....

There is also evidence of a heavier pilum used in siegework, called a Pilum Mutatis (I think thats right, I will check). Apparently its a well heavy spear best used by defenders. No, it was called a Pilum Muralia

Caldrail wanders in... "So where's this party then?"

Allergies are a phenomen of the modern world caused by our upbringing in sterile enviroments. I spent many hours as a young lad wandering the countryside and - suprise suprise - no allergies. I think you'll find that very few romans ever suffered from such ailments, because if they did it was likely they'd be another young death.

Standard bayonet training includes twisting the blade before withdrawal. This not only worsens the injury, but might actually free the blade and allow it to be removed easily. Yes, it has been done on the battlefield since the invention of the bayonet. I do accept that the heat of battle is something different from training, and despite the practice back at barracks, when faced with an enemy trying to kill you some technique tends to fall by the wayside. Naturally a wound is going to hurt, but there are plenty of cases where a stab does not prevent your opponent from fighting on. A flesh wound is different from a thrust into an internal organ or artery. Remember the assassination of Julius Caesar? He was stabbed 23 times, yet fought like a 'wild man' during the killing including grabbing his assailants blade with his bare hands.