caldrail

The real Marc Antony? I see him as someone who was waiting for his chance to rule. It comes as no suprise to me that he was Caesars ally at the beginning, and I think he was hoping to step into his shoes at some point. Notice also that incident during a feast of the Lupercalia, when Marc Antony took part as one of the runners and tried at least twice to present Caesar with a crown. What does that say? Well, he certainly wasn't afraid to act the giddy goat in public, and it certainly proves he meant to support Caesars attempt at power. Antony was scratching Caesars back for all he was worth. But - and this is an important point - when Antony refused to take part in the assasination plot he said nothing to Caesar. He wasn't going to sully his hands with betraying Caesar openly, but instead preferred to wait and take advantage of events. Which indeed he tried to. Antony also comes across as someone with much less political savvy than Caesar. He must have known that marrying Cleopatra was going to cause him problems, yet he considered that her political clout was worth the effort. Did he actually love her? Yes, I think he did fall for her charms. Ceopatra comes across as a woman who knew she could pull the blokes and was a little mercenary about it when it suited her. I wonder if her attempt to speak to Octavian after Antony's death was her chance to pull him too? If so, then Octavian was too wiley to be caught by that one. So - We have a somewhat impulsive man, an opportunist, a man who readily licks rear ends in the pursuit of his ambitions, and ultimately someone with only mediocre political talent.

Oh but it does. Cultural differences are behind most of the disputes and sectarian violence that we see on the evening news. The unifying factor was roman culture, which was packaged and presented to client states and annexed territories, or foisted on them if they didn't like it. For example, take Yugoslavia. A peaceful realm but once the original power base is gone the various cultures are at each others teeth.

I think it did in a way. Not during the pax romana-because soldiers were not allowed an easy life. However, the later empire might be a different matter because the old standards were nolonger adhered to,and thats something Vegetius moans about. Regarding the gauls, the points about trading and the insidious (and possibly intentional?) effects of luxury goods are interesting. But I think there's another side to it. Cultures that raid on a traditional basis but don't conquer territory (native american and maori for instance) tend to last, whereas those that raid and do conquer have an expansion period then come off the boil. Like the vikings for instance. Thats really what I was getting at.

A similar stone block is depicted on a mosaic at the Bignor Villa, in west sussex. At first glance it seems another example of outright cruelty in that entrants to the arena are chained in place. With regard to those people condemned to the beasts I imagine this was very much the case, but even professional gladiators were probably chained too. This would be keep the action in the center of the ring and so everyone could see what was going on. So far I haven't seen any example of these blocks outside britain which makes me wonder if its a romano-british phenomenon?

Being a mountainous area close to the sea the weather can change rapidly, and yes, it does rain frequently. In fact, the weather can make things dangerous when you're walking around those mountain trails and the last time I visited Wales I went up soaked in sweat and came down soaked by rain. Lovely scenery but something to treat with respect.

There's something that I'm curious about regarding the gauls. I read about them in their glory days when they stormed into the city of Rome in 392BC and left with a hefty roman bribe. When they pushed into spain, greece, and the balkans. I read of fierce men who came of age at fifteen with a gift of a sword and shield from their father which they must not lay down until they die. Of people inured to extremes of weather and totally indifferent to death. Yet despite this, they collapse in the face of Julius Caesar. Now we also read of Caesars campaigns in which the gaulish chieftan Vercingetorix is besieged at Alesia, and to be fair, we have to acknowledge Caesars skill and ruthlessness in defeating the gauls. But I'm a little suspicious. Somehow the gauls of the 1st century BC don't seem to have the vigour and coherence of those who strode into town three centuries before. The account of the gallic war by Caesar hints that some were adopting easy lives. In particular I refer to the love of fine horses by some gauls, expensive animals that they clearly don't wish to risk in battle. Or that some were acting as bandits, extracting tolls from travellers by intimidation. Neither of these examples are typical of the fierce warrior mould. I therefore open this subject to discussion - Did the gauls go soft? Was their life increasingly easy and plentiful? Were they turning away from warrior existence for a more settled agrarian way of life?

The locals had a long oral tradition on this subject. No white bearded men (other than the spanish) were present. Its one reason why the spaniards did so well, most of the locals simply fell at their feet thinking they were the returning king and his retinue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the name Servilii a sign of lowly origin? I'm not disputing your list of patricians, merely pointing out that some patrician families weren't always so well off.

Especially since most of them sat in shadey spots watching other people sweat. Funny thing is, it has overtones of communist propaganda doesn't it? Glorifying the farmer who toils for the nation. Some roman farmers may well have been happy with their lot. For most, it would have been hard graft and hard knocks.

I think the phrase 'party politics' isn't the best one to use, although you could claim the two parties were Optimates and Populares. Factional politics is a more accurate description and similar to your view.

His willingness to risk all. Its an important point. History, and my own experience as a wargamer, shows that a commander who doesn't throw everything in when the opportunity arrives won't win. Time and again historical commanders have lost a battle they should have won for simply because they tried to conserve the assets they had. Caesar on the other hand is a different animal. He's willing to fight alongside his men in the front rank if need be. Thats not only true of Caesar on the battlefield, but his his approach to life in general. Also, I would say he had an instinctive grasp of strategy, a ruthless streak, and a habit of exaggeration. Incidentially, whilst Caesar quite clearly had an excellent grasp on artillery tactics I don't think he was the first.

Whatever the actual number in the organisation, the point is that no legion had 16000 on strength. Even then, on campaign a legion is likely to be short of the expected total for a number of reasons as I've mentioned.

The legions of old had gone long before that. During the late empire the army was reorganised and legions afterward were much smaller, only 1000 soldiers strong.

The wall does indeed mark the boundary as part of Hadrians policy of entrenchment. If it was purely a defensive boundary, then there was no need for the number of gates within it. It is true that the wall can be defended if need be, but part of that defense is deterrence - making it clear that an attack must get past this obstacle, and the picts were not well versed in siege warfare. What the wall did in reality is force north and south trade through a number of gates, where roman soldiers could tax trade and prevent smuggling, particularly weaponry. With that in mind, the wall was built to prevent an attack, not defend against one.

An official strength of 5400 men for legions up to Constantine, and around a 1000 thereafter. Not all legions were at full strength on the march, because of deaths, disease, injury, desertion, men on bodyguard duty, immunes, or even because they got seperated and lost. It does happen. On the other hand, civilian camp followers might account for an increase in numbers of around 20%, plus any slaves of the officers and men. Its entirely possible that a legion might be overstrength for some reason but 16,000? Thats an army of three legions, or two with plenty of auxilliaries by my estimate.

As I understand it, roman culture dictated that community leaders were also religious leaders. Part of your social role as local headman was to officiate in ceremonies. The post of Pontifex Maximus, high priest of Rome, was therefore a political post without question, and anyone who took that role would therefore have a position of status and influence. Of course Caesar exploited his role as high priest - thats why he he got himself voted in.

There's more to it than that. The early empire had some considerable wealth floating around but this was being gradually distributed and exported as the wealthy paid huge sums for luxuries and entertainment, both for themselves and for political success. Also, the pattern of local government was changing and it moved from short-term career achievements to sinecures given as a result of backhanders. Rome was getting lazy and indifferent after it let its hair down during the Principate. Also, the 'mafia' style family domination of the Principate was giving way to oriental style monarchies. Commodus after all was the 'first man born to the purple'. It is true that the unstable empire of the 3rd century was disastrous and nearly brought the whole edifice crashing down, but Rome survived this period with many older roman traditions and institutions being replaced. In fact, Rome split more than once - The Gallic Empire for instance - although these were usually shortlived. The original question was whether the split could have been avoided. Possibly, but another would have occurred anyway. There were cultural differences between the latin west and the predominantly greek east so the split was fairly natural, and thats why it lasted I believe. The question of wealth rears its head again though. Its no coincidence that the east survived because thats where all the money went. The impoverished west had nothing to support itself apart from increasing taxes etc.

Hadrians Wall was not intended to keep the scots out, although it could if need be, but to control trade. The scots after all weren't under roman control and they had friends south of the border. The wall was necessary to prevent a rebellion. It also generated revenue in tolls and confiscations. Thats why there were so many gates through the wall.

I've trawled through the stuff I have on celts but nowehere do I find any information about camps. I'm starting to think that they only camped when they had to, and relied more on travelling from settlement to settlement. As for camping out, I think you'd better wrap up warm and hope it doesn't rain! I suspect they made do with crude shelters of on sort or another, or purchased tents from traders?

Its worth remembering that accusations of unsavoury affairs were commonplace in roman politics. Public image was everything. An ambitious roman, much like modern americans, must appear as a benign, generous, respectable person. Mudslinging was one method of ensuring he wasn't. Grafitti, taunts, rumours, violence, and chinese whispers were standard tactics by the late republic. In a sense, the fact that these accusations were made shows the envy these men inspired in their peers.

In the 6th century I think it was, there was chap who had been found guilty of plotting against the eastern emperor. Well... The citizens of the town cut out his tongue, removed his ears, gouged out his eyes, cut off his arms and legs, paraded him around the town for a while, then placed him in a boat which they set on fire. I'm not kidding. As to whether he was still alive by the time he was set afloat is difficuly to say.

One point I made earlier somewhere and worth repeating is that swords differed in quality of manufacture. No celtic swordsmith is going to waste time, effort, and good materials on some idiot with only a pair of pigs to pay for it. The real good stuff was reserved for the wealthy clients - the top echelon of celtic warrior. Most of the celtic swords would therefore be of a lesser quality. Not quite mass produced, but getting there.

400 donkey loads a day arrived at camp. I doubt the slaves got fed extra portions either, but I take your point, I'm simply repeating the figures given. Sabotage? Good point. Have a gold star and three house points! The opportunities would have been limited and remember that the overseers were jewish too and thus not so easy to fool, being keen to preserve their privilege. In fact, the wiley jews are mentioned by Josephus a few times as being pulling strokes where-ever they could. One excellent example from the Siege of jerusalem was a young boy, who approached the roman soldiers waiting by the well, obviously desperate for water. The guards, in a moment of warm-heartedness not normally associated with legionaries, allowed him to drink. He then stole a bucket ful from undertheir noses and ran back to his compatriots, along with some very choice language from the soldiers! Its that level of sabotage I would expect. Small opportunistic things done by individuals, not large scale schemes by people who were probably too tired and sore from whipping to care.

First of all, lets realise violence is endemic to human beings and always will be. We are basically social animals and therefore ritualised violence is part of normal herd behaviour. Its not unusual. However, nature hasn't given humans much in the way of weaponry, so being clever little buggers, we invented blades and clubs to give us artificial famgs, claws, and powerful limbs that we lack in real life. Modern technology of course goes a whole lot further, hence the aerial bombing you mention. But consider this.... Wars are not won by being nice. If you lose, your nation could be enslaved or dismatled. Therefore, howver cruel, callous, or even despicable it seems, you must defeat your enemy by whatever means seem the most expedient. During WWII, aerial bombing was seen as an essential way of reducing enemy production and morale. Because the bombing was inaccurate the only way to ensure victory was drop bombs indiscriminately. A terrible thing to be sure, I cannot disagree. But these were raids mounted on a large scale involving hundreds of aircraft over enemy territory. It isn't possible to compare that with the actions of a handful of conspirators although one must bear in mind such actions as the destruction of the US embassy in Beirut or 9/11. In these cases, the individuals are acting on their own cognizance. They do not represent the nations they claim to fight for. The purpose of their actions is to make a token strike against an enemy they see as invincible, to ensure their cause is seen as having credibility, and to frighten governments and populations into giving in to their demands over the prospect of further action. The article in question brings up the point that human behaviour is actually no different then as it is now, a point I've made very often. Sure we live in different times and our world and cultures have changed, but underlying this are the same situations, emotions, and responses that we have now. Terrorism is a word that now has a vague definition. Some people use the phrase whenever violence is used. As for terrorism being the tactics of the past, doesn't that depend on whether you were on the winning side? I sympathise with your viewpoint but really you need to step back and see why people behave like this in the first place. The moral issue is a relative one. Sad thing is we won't change nor renounce violence no matter how many of us sneer at it. I really do think you need to be more realistic about the world about you, because its the same world we read about in history books.