caldrail

Borough Roughly corresponds to the Burg, Berg, Borg and Bourg used in teutonic countries and parts of France. It means town. I don't know where 'shire' comes from, although I can tell you that the word 'Sherriff' was originally 'Shire - rieve'. Sex is as follows: Wessex - West Saxons. Essex - East Saxons. Middlesex - middle Saxons. Sussex - South Saxons. The 'sex' element used to be spelt 'Saexe'. I like it. Technically then the Cotswolds are a poor mans forest in saxon times. Thats even more interesting given that the roman town of Corinium (now cirencester) was such an important settlement. Be careful of Sheriff because I believe thats a medieval phrase.

In any open public space. Temporary arenas were sometimes erected, or simple wooden seating arranged. The forum was a venue for such displays. Having looked at the ludus built by julius caesar, I notice that there was seating around the rim like a smaller version of an ordinary amphitheatre. Was that used for public displays besides training?

Are you sure you have the right size for the tent? An eight man leather tent is a bulky item, none too light, and given how much work was necessary to keep it in good condition the romans wouldn't want it very large at all. These were men on the march and therefore roomy accomodation was not necessary. Bear in mind also that whilst camped not all soldiers slept in the tents due to guard duty amongst other things, so the others weren't always so cramped up together.

Very much the point. Despite the politics, it shows Antony as capable of being led. The average roman male regarded 'love' as something akin to emotional slavery. We know they did fall in love - they were humans after all and grafitti at Pompeii from one love-struck man proves it. Whilst Antony was a general in his own right, with up to thirty legions plus a large fleet of galleys at his disposal prior to Actium, he was nonetheless not as strong emotionally as some of the other contenders. He did after all commit suicide after he lost Actium in a fit of despair. Cleopatra at least tried to see if she could get out of difficulty first. PS - Having read a bit more about Antony, I discover that after Actium he retreated to Egypt and tried to defend it, so my arguement doesn't hold up. I would have been more impressed if he'd taken to the hills a la spartacus, but then is that possible in Egypt? I stand by my original comments however.

In actual fact, the good Reverend Smith way back in eighteen hundred and something reckoned that the 'co-hum' phrase was pidgin latin used by saxons. I'm no expert on ancient languages though and I guess even back then he knew more about it than I will. Interested to hear of the welsh connection though, because the book was about north wiltshire place names and the maps included showed all the victorian era names which have fallen into disuse since.

Very often this 'psuedohistory' is created by people who really don't know very much and want people to listen to them, whether for profit or simply because they're hopeless cases. In some cases psuedohistory is the basis of a religious cult. On the other hand, sometimes history/archaeology does turn up things that don't fit accepted thinking. Like the water erosion on the sides of the sphinx. or those incredibly mammoth chinese ships used during the dark ages. Problem is, many learned people have taken a great deal of time and effort to learn the accepted history and don't like that work being overturned by some upstart newcomer without any credentials. So some oddities get suppressed. I think you need to look at each of these new ideas and treat them objectively without being swayed by coincidental or misinterpreted evidence.

Having just discovered a nineteenth century volume at the local library, I thought it might be interesting to pass on some the information regarding saxon place names that survive to this day. I'm sure there are plenty of others still existing but from these you can get little clues as to how the land was developed during the dark age. These are only saxon phrases and viking extensions are not included. Firstly, it must be realised that the Britain the romans conquered was largely forest. The saxons who followed them were often reclaiming land from mother nature. Field- This is derived from Fell, or cleared woodland. A field is therefore a forest clearing for the purposes of agriculture. Mead- This suffix, so beloved of modern developers, actually means open grazing land reclaimed from marsh. Meadow is derived from it. Bury- An intersting one, because this modern spelling actually means two things. The first is derived from burgh, or hilltop fort. An example is Barbury Castle. The other meaning is derived from berie or flat open land. An example is Avebury, mentioned in the domesday book as Avreberie. Don- Hill. Ton- Or tun. The word town is derived from this, but the original meaning is an enclosed cattle pasture. Ham- A suffix derived from heim or 'Home'. It denotes a settled community. Cot/Cote- A word that signifies a poor mans dwelling. Cottage is derivd from it. For example, Draycott is a place where cottagers, or poor folk, are living. Ey- Island. This can refer to an island in a marsh as well as running water. Dauntsey for instance translates as 'Island of the Danes'. Leigh/Ley- meaning 'By The Wood'. Ford- Not suprisingly, a place where a river can be safely crossed. Bourne- A seasonal stream or rivulet, the sort of thing that dries up in summer. Leaze- This suffix denotes open communal pasture surrounding a thicket of trees. This sort of feature is sometimes seen in west england, although the communal ownership has long since become private. Croft- Fenced or hedged land close to a dwelling, presumably for their use. Pen/Penn- A fenced enclosure. Penning- A disused farmyard or enclosure. Ing- Possibly related to previous definition, Ing refers to the home of a powerful family and the other families who look to them for leadership and protection. Comb/Combe- A distorted word. Comb should mean 'ridge' but often denotes a valley. The other spelling, Combe, is suspected to be derived from Co-Hum which means 'connecting two hills'.

We Brits call them 'sleeping policemen'. Do you call them that too? I must say it never occurred to me that the Romans invented them. I, like others, thought those big paving-stones were purely to serve as stepping stones during heavy rain -- but I quite agree that they would also have the effect you mention. I don't remember any source hinting at chariot races in city streets ... perhaps this is why! I disagree. Given the pedestrian and crowded nature of roman settlements it would have been difficult if not impossible to reach any reasonable speed along a street. Although these stones would indeed inhibit speed so would everyone else, thus they weren't really needed. If the ancient sources had mentioned say... young men racing chariots around town and being frowned upon by their elders, I could accept it. Mind you, given the activities of youths in powerful cars these days one wonders if the romans did indeed have trouble with risk-taking young men of wealthy families!

The Roman Revolution is about the republic being replaced by a dictator and then an empire, although our words for it are modern and lose the meaning the romans had. The roman word for emperor - Imperator - actually means military leader and is a mark of respect from the legions. The empire in a strict sense - the control over foreign states - was already in existence during the republic. Its just that by convention we refer the roman state from Augustus onward as the Empire. The republic was a reasonably stable plutocracy - rule by the wealthy - with a high degree of law and culture, at least in theory. The revolution was the rise of individual leaders instead of the temporary shared format that had worked so well. Ultimately, Octavian was the winner. Although its often thought that the 'Empire' was a monarchy, this is not so. It tended to develop toward one, as is natural for an autocratic state, but lacked the stability and traditions to allow it.

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.