caldrail

That doesn't make sense to me. If britain became more and more worth while then why the gradual retreat from the 3rd century ad onward? I'm thinking of my local area. It was on the road between Corinium (the second largest roman town) and the south coast. A legionary staging post at Durocornovium establish a small settlement which produced pottery and iron working. There were plently of landed families around. Villas have been found at Groundwell, Chiseldon, and Badbury. The last two, as well as durocornovium itself, are abandoned at the end of the 3rd century as the withdrawal of legions begins. It wasn't just the military withdrawal - there definitely seems to be a fundamental breakup (not collapse) of romanised society beginning. The british were reverting to a simpler less roman lifestyle whilst still living in roman towns and villa. I notice that the archaeological remains of villas around england show the same process. That occupied villas fall into neglect and become used as makeshift farm houses.

I don't agree with this. A succesful general of any culture exhibits similar qualities. They tend to be arrogant risk-takers with strong leadership skills and an intuitive grasp of their armies relative strengths and weaknesses, plus a good eye for terrain. The difference between western and eastern styles of warfare are not black and white, its all shades of grey according to cultural leanings.

I haven't read of this but I can't imagine a roman commander leaving these weapons lying around. Unrepairable ones would serve as firewood? Those suitable for repair would soon be in the hands of the weapon smiths. Why pay good sestercii for more?

Not to any great extent. Obviously some soldiers had their noses put out but since roman troops weren't particularly obedient surely you'd expect some form of dispute if they were genuinely angry? There wasn't any. In fact, I think the changes suited a lot of people. Firstly it meant the lower classes now had access to a steady job soldiering for Rome. It certainly beat labouring in the civilian sector. Granted it was a risk occupation but there were some definite perks to it. As for the higher classes, there was less demand on their services for the rank-and-file. I know rome was a militarised culture and that military service was an important step in political credibility, but it sure looked better on your CV if you'd served as a legate, tribune, or centurion.

We know that red dye was used by the legions, most likely for centurions or higher ranks. The particular tone of red would vary according to local circumstance - but also according to rank. Lower ranks would have a duller colour, and more vivid colour for commanders. This has historical precedent and we know that romans were particularly keen on colour in their culture. The material would vary in quality in the same fashion. However, as the poster already said, an off-white is more than likely for ordinary legionaries. The speculation about colour coding is probably correct in a subtle and low key way. After all, human beings have done that for their military since... well... ancient times. Heraldry after all isn't just identification, its a human derivative of a threat display in herd animals.

Excellent work. Since you're depicting a legionary in marching order have you considered the two wooden stakes he must carry to help build a marching fort? Granted they wouldn't always do that but it was standard practice.

There's a difference between a roman pilum and a barbarian javelin. Javelins are throwing spears and do indeed get used to cause casualties. After all, your enemy could throw the darn thing back so it was just as well to kill him first. Now the pilum can kill just as easily. It was just as much a weighty sharp point thrown in your direction. However, the soft iron shank meant that it wasn't going to get thrown back. The reason I refer to the pilum as a disabling weapon is because roman soldiers used it to de-shield their enemy deliberately, whereas a for a barbarian javelin this was a happy coincidence. It was the tactical use that differentiated them as much as physical properties.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reference to a census in Judaea comes from the bible? There's no other historical source for one earlier than 6ad? The reason I say this is that I tend to think that much of that story is fiction. If there's an official record of such a census then fine, I've got no problem. The other reason I'm sceptical is we assume that Jesus was born on december 25th in the year 0. I doubt he was. Records of births weren't usually kept unless you were of a high born family. Now its true that Jesus's family weren't peasants but in Judaea at that time, despite the roman presence, I don't believe accurate records of births and deaths were kept. The traditional birth date for Jesus was settled at a much later time, three hundred years afterward, and it was fitted into the roman calender to fall at the end of the saturnalia, a very popular festival. All a matter of religious politics and christian marketing really. To answer the original question, surely a census taker would simply require everyone to register locally? Going back to the town of your forefathers carries hints of apartheid in ancient times and would have created financial problems for those forced to travel. Not good for the taxman then.

Please remember that although the etruscans dominated early Rome, the kings were voted for by the romans. It was a similar process to the dark age english if you like. There's a lot that doesn't add up about early roman history but do we have any better reference? Even the romans didn't, and creatively filled the blank space. Also remember that not all the kings of rome were etruscan. At least one was latin but I don't remember which one. Dig out 'Chronicle of the Roman Republic' which has some good information on this subject.

The bogbodies are almost always sacrifices. They were usually bound before being executed and dumped in the bog. Its only the sterile qualities of the mud that preserved the remains. Originally the romans thought britain was a mysterious island out on the edge of the known world, possibly inhabited by strange monsters and wild barbarians. They were half right! This view would have persisted even after merchants traded there. In fact, the phoenicians were well acquainted with the place having traded for tin in Cornwall. It was only after Julius Caesar made his two forays there and wrote about it that the romans began waking up to the truth of what brittania was. Nonetheless, the romans persisted with britannia and only at the end of the 3rd century do we see a retreat as legions began moving home. Agricola would have conquered the place but for Domitians jealousy, although I do notice that apart from an attempt to maintain the antonine wall no further conquest of caledonia was ever undertaken. It seems the romans decided there was no value in further conquest.

Reference please Wotwotius? Indeed , I was under the impression most thought it to be a globe, (given the rather accurate Greek calculation of its size)? That would be true if romans were educated in that respect. I don't think they were. Knowledgable romans may have read the greek hypothesis (and may or may not have believed the results) but that doesn't mean the average roman on the street knew anything about it. As far as I'm aware, the prevailing view at the time was that the world was disc shaped. I don't think the average roman actually cared what shape the world was - it was far more important to survive (with as much wealth and status as possible)

Local archaeologists have a tendency to overstate the importance of their own finds and produce their own theories of what was going on at that time. A few decades ago the Battle of Beranburgh (568ad?) near Swindon was seen as a major turning point in the saxon invasion of the south west of england and much was made of the evidence found on wroughton plateau. These days its a much smaller engagement. Actually it was still an important breakthrough for saxon colonists (Waylands Smithy is in the area) but the battle itself was hundreds rather than thousands, and may have only been handfuls. There is one roman expert who believes the saxon invasions were of a peaceful colonial nature. This is despite the roman coastal forts, the britons sending diplomats to Honorius in 410ad begging for assistance, or an english monk describing the saxons as 'a race hateful to god'. Its easy to evolve pet theories about how things were. Lets face it, I'm just as guilty. However, the real test is to be prepared to change those ideas when the evidence suggests something else. I think the overall picture and the local evidence must agree. If not, then someone needs to get on the case and figure out why not.

It is an exaggeration. Suetonius milked that victory for everything it was worth. But it was also a triumph of roman discipline and courage. Unfortunately we don't know much about the actual circumstances of the battle. I'll have to re-read about this one.

Under the emperors the old style of factional politics had gone. Now you had this single man, hopefully a strong noble leader, perhaps even god-like, whose status was above anyone elses and from whom all political power was derived. There was less to rebel against. But that doesn't mean that mob violence never occurred. The riot at the pompeiian arena during nero's reign left them with a ten year ban on games. Claudius was pelted with stale bread because of impending corn shortages. From the flavian emperors onward we see less mob violence. Egypt was now part of the empire and grain arrived regularly. The institution of bread and circuses had changed the public mindset. Life was easier, there was little to be angry about, and in any case, your emperor has very kindly (at his own expense) put on games lasting months. For your entertainment. Emperors following the example of caligula had begun appearing in the arena themselves if they were of a mind to do that - and what a spectacle! Your emperor himself in the arena showing his roman virtue in the face of danger. This perculated down and we see people like didius julianus entering the arena as consul for the same purpose - personal aggrandisement. Of course romans of all status had volunteered for the arena but these were always a minority, and it was frowned upon for a roman of noble birth to take to the sands ever since the days of augustus. The entertainment industry of rome had become a political mouthpiece. A way of diverting the crowds, of keeping them happy, and enhancing your own reputation even if you don't wield a sword down there.

Nero, like most powerful romans, had a nasty streak. He wasn't known as a pleasant character. But it was caligula who threatened to impose his horse Incitatus as a consul of rome, and that was done to insult the senate. 'My horse could do a better job than you lot'.

These extra names were honorific. Not hereditary as such, but if your father had earned the title (or received for the purposes of toadying) and you were coming into a position status and respect it was likely your peers would award you the same prerogative. I don't know for sure but simply calling yourself by these extra titles would only invite derision?

All the evidence this article has suggests that there were romans in ireland. Diplomats, traders, and who knows, possibly even some ex-patriots. Some had guards? A fortified estate? I think this evidence shows the initial stage of roman conquest. Individuals going there, trading, meeting, and working with the irish to cement relations with possible allies and find out who their enemies will be, as well as what to expect in terms of resources. The romans had done the same thing in britain and germany. No, not an invasion, but the groundwork for one that never happened?

One thing to note about pre-musket warfare is the unwillingness of soldiers to deliberately harm horses. To some extent thats because of their size and weight - in a battle situation getting too close to a horse generally means you bounce off painfully. They were also expensive commodities which could be captured and used by your own troops. The ability of the ancient world to rear horses was limited and nowhere near the situation we see in the napoleonic era for instance. In the old days when hastati threw javelins or whatever then indiscriminate fire was commonplace. The tactical use of a pila however is to disarm the enemy, either by rendering his shield useless or by injuring him (hopefully fatally). This is an important advantage because without a shield your enemy is exposed. This was particularly true of barbarians who often fought bare chested.

Caligula vs nero, and its looking as if as Nero's superior talent and fun personality is winning out

Much of this info comes down to us from satyric poets and moralists of the Roman times and much of it was very likely true. However we should keep in mind that many of the people who report the curruption of the Roman world usually like to exaggerate for their own purpose. The same moralists today who complain about the degeneracy of the world. Should we generalize and say that this world is nothing but a *or*/sex addicted enron like society? No. My opinions come from letters written by romans to their friends, or from grafitti left by disillusioned romans. This is the society that charged a tax on going to the toilet for crying out loud. And lets face it, although plenty of romans disliked degeneracy their concept of it was a little different from ours. Prostitutes could rent alcoves at the back of wealthy homes. Landlords charged high rents for rat infested jerry-built condo's. In fact, roman society functioned like a watered down version of the mafia. They left us plenty of evidence for it.

Greek influenced. Remember though that the carthaginian army was largely composed of mercenaries. Despite the hellenistic leanings egypt had an individual style to its armed forces. I think its harder to put egypt in one category or another.

Firstly both would have you put to death for suggesting they were short of sanity. Caligula - No, not a raving looney, but a very maladjusted young man. He had no restraint on his malicious mickey-taking and in an immature fashion attempted to explore the limits of his power over others in much the same way a young child does with his parents. Claiming to be a living god? Well he wasn't alone there. Lots of autcratic rulers with fawning courtiers came to that conclusion. Nero - A young man who grew up to self determination despite his mothers control. Again he discovered he could do anything and decided to have a good time all of the time. And just to make it better, he'd give everyone else a good time by performing in public. Nero didn't burn rome - he was 35 miles away in antium when that started. He also rushed back to organise relief efforts. It was his lack of judgement that he chose to build his palace on former residential land. Did the christians deserve burning? No not really, although there is some circumstantial evidence that christian activists had something to do with it. Case unproven. Murdering his mother? Truth is nero was left little choice but to. You want a real nutcase? Elagabulus.

Good point. I haven't seen any. However, it strikes me that they'd have little use for it. First of all poison might be expensive to obtain, and then you might need someone to prepare and administer it. Lower classes tend to be more direct. A knife in the ribs or a darn good thrashing usually better for them. The upper classes require more subtlety, hence the use of poison.

Possibly, but in the light of evidence given above I now see Sulla not so much as Montgomery Burns, more like Fat Tony. I know this is speculation, but Chrysogonus's fate does have similarities to a gangland execution. "Chrysogonus... Chrysogonus... I made a freedman. I let you buy a villa at cost price. And this is how you repay me? Huh? You drag my good name through the court. What am I gonna do with you?..... Shaddup. I don't wanna hear these excuses. Throw him off the rock..." In reality though I would think Sulla found a legal excuse to execute chrysogonus?

Its often been suggested that the romans were prone to lead poisoning. I've always been a bit suspicious of this. True the roman plumbing was composed of lead pipes but the amount of lead picked up is insignificant and in any case, a protective chemical layer tends to form. On the other hand, the use of cooking vessels made of lead has better credibility. This poisoning wouldn't have dropped a roman dead in thirty seconds, more like senile in thirty years. So rather like today, some aspects of roman lifestyles were unhealthy.