caldrail

Beware - the bendy pilum works because of gravity, not impact. If the point bends on impact then the weapon is functionally useless since the point will not pierce but simply deflect. Once the point has penetrated, then gravity and the weight of the shaft will bend the shank without any problem whatsoever. If the pilum hits the gound at a fine angle the end result is likely to be a bend rather than penetration, but then if it does stick into the gound the result is the same as the a shield strike. So thats good from a roman perspective. There is always the possibility that a pilum thrown flatly will simply land on the ground without major damage and can be immediately re-used by the enemy.

Who's Who In The Roman World. I agree I'm filling the blanks a little. But you have to understand that I'm looking at jesus as a historical person. There's a definite trend in jesus's story that emerges once you realise the bible isn't a historical document. Remember that the stories about him were written decades after his death. Jesus actually achieved diddly squat - it was the people who used his story as the basis of their own cults that achieved the great change in roman religion. Almost everything that survives today about jesus is grossly distorted by the earlier christians who edited and added features of the story to justify the claim that he had holy credibility. He's refferred to as the 'only begotten son of god', when clearly his parents had a better claim. The bible depicts jesus as poring scorn on the idea of kingship when in fact its fairly obvious thats exactly what he was after. Gospels that didn't fit the image were discarded. Now I can accept that jesus was a gifted child. I can accept that he had a brief period of popularity as a preacher. I can accept the romans crucified him. But these are all very human things. If you look closely at the story you can spot the clues toward his personality and behaviour.

Status in modern eyes isn't the same as back then. Particularly in roman culture where they were acutely sensitive to it. Can you really assume that a slave would receive attention after claiming he had a message from the gods? Whether or not someone gets listened to initially depends on the persons demeanour and personal qualities. Whether he gets believed depends on his charisma. Whether he is allowed to tell anyone depends on his status. That was even more true then. These days any tom dick or harry gets their five minutes in the spotlight for any excuse. The modern media encourages this because its business, and usually they present these odd individuals in a manner that amuses the rest of us. Back then, such an individual might be seen very differently. True the public might still laugh at him, but if you're the local governor of the province and word reaches you of some rural farmer who's wandering around telling everyone about messages from the gods, wouldn't you want to know want the heck is going on? For the common person, an emperor has an aura of power. The emperor can order armies to move, he can order great works to be constructed, he can decide life or death at a whim. Now whilst he may seem to be an ordinary person as such that ruler nonetheless has power and influence the ordinary man does not and can never have. There is a very real difference in the perception of these two individuals. Of course some people sneered. The Emperor? Who's he trying to kid? But because the personal charisma of a man with such power is likely to impress the average man on street (not always as some emperors found out somewhat painfully!) he is more likely to be believed. Why else do dictators tell such absolute whoppers to their public and get believed?

No, its the bible that records that Jesus wanted to teach humility. The early christian leaders wanted their flocks to behave in a decent controllable fashion. Jesus actually wanted to be king in judaea, and shamelessly used religion to attract followers. As for being born in manger, thats merely a scene in a story written about the man and may well be complete nonsense. Furthermore, jesus's family were not as poor as the bible would have us believe. They of of royal descent, and in his childhood I really do think his parents browbeat him on that subject to ensure his good behaviour. Jesus did not always show respect. He did kick a few tables over did he not? And the only reason he deferred to caesars status was because he was in dire danger of being executed. As for dying for Man - Pardon? He died because the romans saw him as a potential rebel. because he wouldn't keep his mouth shut. Because he stirred up public disorder. In a sense his parents failed because he did not become the good son they wanted - they even disowned him. On the other hand, they ensured that jesus made the attept to secure what he considered his birthright - to sit on the judaean throne. As for stopping an uprising, I meant after jesus's death as an expression of outrage. Truth is, no-one gave a monkeys after he was killed, something the bible fails to explain.

Ordinary people are... well... ordinary.... Why would a god speak with such worthless scum? On the other hand, someone who has wealth and power on a seemingly unlimited scale is of a different class altogether. Somebody 'special' dare I say? My point of course is that ego has a lot to do with it, as well as perception of another persons status. Now the romans as a whole were a very superstitious bunch. There's a set of caves somewhere in either greece or italy (I can't remember where) which were used in ancient times to extract cash from the innocent by setting up a visit to the 'underworld'. Obviously not all romans were superstitious and some were absolutely criminal in their exploitation of religious needs. We see the same thing in early christianity, where get-rich-quick bishops founded individual cults where they could control the flock more easily. Usually a person claiming to hear messages from the gods might be treated with some circumspection, as such communication normally drives one mad apparently. No suprise there! However - regardless of social rank or the weight of ones purse, if anyone of sufficient bravura/charisma/oratorical ability stood up and spoke about it, sooner or later they'll accumulate listeners. Jesus did exactly that after all. Its a risky move though. many people around won't believe your message, they will be suspicious of your motives, they may be envious that you were 'chosen', or simply insulted that some god spoke to you and not the divine emperor.

Lots of people put forward odd theories about why the west collapsed. Tree felling may have been a contributing factor, but not a major cause. There were other such factors, such as the silting up of harbours, lead poisoning, etc. All of them on their own couldn't bring down the west, but together these factors added to the wests woes. Just a few more straws on the camels bacjk as it were.

Its a bad comparison. Roman democracy wasn't entirely based on the greek model. It was after all a plutocracy - government by the wealthy. Rule by one man isn't limited to eastern culture. Thats normal human behaviour which the weakened senate was unable or unwilling to curb. The empire was Rome living on borrowed time in one sense.

Its noticeable that the loyalty of the legions is often down to pay. There seems to be little patriotism for troops who spend up to 25 years of their life training, labouring, and risking their necks . To some extent thats understandable given that many of them are foreign non-citizens. But without donatives, would ordinary pay have been enough?

Thats the problem. Our view of jesus comes from the teachings of christianity which understandably give the man a golden aura. I don't think he was great at all. He was the Jew Who Would Be King. The romans sussed it, and stopped him dead. The talk of miracles are either exaggerations or quaint tales intended to bolster this 'son of god' image. If he was such a great man, why was there no uprising in judaea at this time? I get the impression that many jews regarded him as a trouble-maker. Of course, having been bumped off made him something of a martyr in later decades. One of the central claims in christianity is that 'Jesus died for us'. Paul was absolutely shameless in the way he promoted this image. Jesus died for his own ambition whatever the new testament says.

Two sides of the same coin. Neither was better than the other. The republic, faced with the same decisions as the empire, would have crumbled too. The empire after all was living off the wealth of the republics gain.

That depends on whether a 'roman' fort is discovered. If not, then trade or raiding. From an article I read the author pours scorn on the idea that romans were trading consistently with ireland so that leaves raiding. Since the romans did not launch punitive expeditions we can therefore assume the raids were nuisance value and limited in scope. Given that historians do not recount tales of rampaging irishwarriors this kind of agrees.

In may 215ad Caracalla visits alexandria. Its the second largest city in the roman empire. He visits the tomb of alexander the great and lays his purple cloak over it, a symbol of honour from a man whose military leanings were evident. Shortly after this, his guards rampage around the city slaying ordinary citizens by the streetful. Thousands are supposed to have been killed. Now Caracalla was a psychopath himself, and roman troops were not averse to this behaviour if they were let loose in war, but this was a blatant and unwarranted attack in peacetime. Does anyone have any clue why this event occurred?

Soldiers were paid three times a year at a special parade. Titus even had to interrupt the siege of jerusalem to pay his troops because the normal pay date had passed by. The soldiers weren't cheated, they got the money under normal circumstances. Lets face it, anyone who didn't pay roman soldiers usually didn't live very long. Soldiers also had deductions from their pay, for equipment, pension, burial club etc. One seventh of it was held back as the retirement fund, a lump sum paid to them when they had served their time. Its also worth noting that Julius Caesar almost doubled the pay of soldiers to the original imperial rate.

Which is precisely why the Romans wanted him dead. If the charge against Jesus was just blasphemy, the Jews could have stoned him themselves instead of disturbing Pilate at an unearthly hour of the night on the eve of the most important festival in Judaism Yep.... Full agreement there. Wrong. Christos is the Greek translation for Messiah. Messiah was a word the Jews used for "anointed one". It did not mean the same thing to them as it does to Christians. Otherwise explain to me why Cyrus is also called Messiah. Does that imply that Cyrus was a god and started his own religion? The definition of messiah isn't disputed. But there's no way the jews of that time were going to call any tom dick or harry a messiah. To be anointed meant something special, an honour, something of religious significance. Does that imply that Cyrus was a god and started his own religion? No, but it might imply he started his own cult. Belief is what you hold to be true. Religion is what someone tells you to believe. A cult is religion without societies approval. Anyone calling themselves a messiah is a suspect of some seriously whacky behaviour. Being called a messiah by someone else invites disaster at some point because invariably you're not. What happened to Cyrus by the way? Really? In that case God has sons BY THE TON in the bible. Adam is called son of god, and so is David or Solomon, can't remember which. There is even a verse "I say to ye, that ye are all sons of God". Does that mean all of us are Messiahs? Messiah was a purely mundane title, it denoted the chosen one of God who was to deliver Israel from the Pagan yoke. Therefore it did not mean Son of God, at least not the way Christains understand it As I siad, the concept of father and son has evolved since these times. These days the defintion is very strict. The people of those times used the phrase in a wider sense. I stand by what I said earlier. To be a messiah means that god has chosen you for this mission in life - you are 'adopted' as his son.

Correct. He started a personality cult based around himself to secure support for an attempt at political power. Well ok there must have been plenty of people in judaea who didn't like the romans. Not everyone who flocked to his sermons would have been a devout worshipper. Some were casual worshippers, others simply bored or curious. True, he didn't. But he did associate himself as a prophet of the said god and quite possibly got carried away with his own success. People sometimes suggested they had divine ancestory. Julius caesar did. It was either for self-aggrandisement or self-delusion. The word messiah might have a strict meaning but it definitely did imply 'son of god' status. Remember that adoption in the ancient world was a less formal matter than today. To be chosen by god - the 'father' - was to imply the chosen was his son. No arguement there! Thats a matter of opinion. The local priests weren't happy about this upstart jesus riding into town, kicking over tables, drawing large crowds, proclaiming he was chosen.... The romans of course had no intention of letting jesus have a crown. Mundane or spiritual. Not good for public order and in any case it was a little insulting to roman eyes. It wasn't the jews as a whole, but rather those who liked the status quo and didn't want this jesus ruining it for them. I don't know if the early romans wrote of this tale as we understand it now, but by the early middle ages the general belief was that the jews were responsible and the first crusade attacked jewish communities on their way to the holy land. Correct. He never met jesus and used him as a figurehead for his own related cult, one of many. His teachings formed the foundation for much of the later religion that was brought together from these independent christian cults from constantine onwards. I've not heard that, but it does suggest that the roman influence wanted to ensure that jesus's family did not produce another pretender for the judaean throne.

Yep, some anmimals don't like working. Nor do many human beings, which is why we harness animals to our ploughs (and they tend to be stronger than us anyway - very convenient). However, if all you've got is mules and camels, then you hitch them. Mules have a legendary status for being obstinate but then why have they been used by us since the year dot? Because that obstinancy is a two edged coin. It might be difficult to start them but they'll pull when horses would have given up.

He should know!

Technically he did lose that one! But a strategic and personal victory nonetheless.

Roman archaeology? I doubt it. Ancient artifacts either had curiosity value or were treated with religious reverence. There wouldn't have been any attempt to understand what the artifact actually was, nor to adjust history in the light of its discovery.

Well, my two denarii Jesus is a historical figure, of that I'm sure. He came from a good family and parents had high hopes for him. The impression I get is that jesus was a gifted child but like many with pushy parents, he went a little off the rails as a youth. The bible doesn't record anything of those years at all. Interestingly, there's a trail of local legend and folklore across france and into england suggesting jesus travelled with merchants. I haven't found any solid evidence there though. When jesus re-emerges he's an ambitious preacher, building a personality cult for the sole intention of achieving a throne in judaea. Of course the romans don't like that and neither does caiaphus, who represents the local establishment. Claiming to be a god wasn't unusual in the ancient world. The egyptians were keen on that sort of thing and so were certain emperors. Nero was held in such awe that a slave who looked like him mounted a play for power after his death. Followers flocked to his cause convinced that Nero had returned from the grave. It doesn't suprise me that someone has claimed that Caesar was jesus. Constantine tried to get one of his relatives worshipped as that person. Its a peculiarity of human psychology that we tend to gather around charismatic figures for no apparent reason. Adolf Hitler, Princess Di etc. The same happened with jesus. The problem with the bible is we're taught to accept its text as irrefutable, when in actual fact its a story meant to protray this jesus as a son of god rather than a future king. As I've said before its on a par with a modern hollywood film - 'based on a true story'. The nativity, the famous birth scene, is probably nonsense. I really do doubt three kings travelled to a stable in nazareth, and as for astronomers searching for evidence of comets and other such phenomena, give up. Its been added to the story to wow the audience. To justify this image of jesus as 'son of god'. He was a brash and pushy guy who wanted to make a name for himself without all that hard work that his parents used to nag him about. He was clever, articulate, and certainly had some presence. Had he remained a rural preacher he would have led that life of ease he wanted. His ambition cost him dearly. Its ironic though that in death he succeeded far better than he would have had he achieved his desire. The bible as we know it is a collection of tales that passed scrutiny in the 4th century by roman clerics, who had political reasons to decide which stories suited the more organised religion that was coming together under the aegis of Constantine. We shouldn't dismiss the bible entirely though, because there are valuable clues to the period contained there.

I get the impression that britain was seen as potentially troublesome. The picts were a possible threat hence the need for the military/commercial barrier of hadrians wall. The irish? I wonder if there was any possible threat from them back then. Certainly toward the latter part of the empire saxons needed fending off. The thing is, I know from researching my local area that troops were being recalled as early as the end of the third century. Some of that was due to romes internal disputes as much as northern barbarian incursions on the mainland. However - once they left they never returned did they? Britain was no longer important? Too far away to keep secure? Too expensive to keep secure?

Slave quarters depended on the building itself. The owners wouldn't want visitors wandering past their bedchambers so somewhere in cellars or the back of the house. There's a wealthy mans house on the palatine which has a cellar complex devoted to slave dwellings which had narrow badly lit corridors with low ceilings that would have forced one to stoop. For a rural villa there may even have been a seperate building.

When we look at Commodus we judge him by modern morality. The same is said for other 'bad' emperors but the others? Trajan after all arranged the deaths of thousands in the arena to celebrate his victory in Dacia and he's supposed to one of the good ones. Severus might have been cynical but then he was a soldier first and foremost. Perhaps hard-nosed, a realist, and certainly one well used to the details of command. He was also the man who banned female gladiators.

Yes. I don't know how tractable camels are as plough-pullers but its certainly within the bounds of reason. Horses were too expensive for that work, both in purchase and feed, and the larger breeds intended for pulling hadn't existed then. This sort of thing isn't unusual. Goats were used to pull small chariots for wealthy children in some cases as we know from Julius Caesar. If you're poor and you need something to pull a plough, you make do with what you could find, breed, hire, beg, or steal. Mules would have been a good choice if a little unwilling at times. Oxen even better but such large animals must have been uncommon, paricularly in some areas like deserts.

Commodus was popular with the crowd - inevitably since he strutted his stuff in the arena on a regular basis. The senate was a different ball game. They were a class apart from the mob. Any threat to Severus was going to arise from them. Some of their members had conspired to eliminate Commodus and place Pertinax in charge. Besides any personal advantage, this was done to ensure a smooth transition of power. Unfortunately Pertinax was less adept as a politician than desired. The praetorians got upset about the limits being imposed upon them, got drunk, and went round to the palace to sort him out. Fair play to Pertinax, he had some backbone and confronted the mob, but to no avail. Then the shameful auctioning of the throne took place leaving Didius in charge. Severus meanwhile has himself promoted to emperor by his soldiers on the frontier and marches on Rome. He does a deal with Niger to prevent rivalry. Didius appeals to the senate to allow him to share power with Severus, but that negotiation failed. One does not share power by force. Didius sends assassins to kill Severus - again, a failure. The senate more or less curry favour with the approaching Severus and his army by having Didius killed with further ceremony, and do not contest Serverus's claim to power. The senate has actually shown weakness by doing so. They fear retribution or proscription. The fact is Severus could say pretty much anything he liked. The praetorians were replaced with his men and control was very firmly his. Marcus Aurelius was the wrong personality to be identified with. Severus wanted a stronger, more virile image to associate too, and in any case, Marcus Aurelius had died and passed power legitimately to Commodus. The Gladiator Emperor was therefore the last who had attained power by legimate means. It was a way of suggesting to the senate that their shenanigans were over - that succession would return to less bloody ways whether they liked it or not.