caldrail

Slaves also came from legal sentences or simply because it was a better choice than poverty. Pirates were never really eliminated in the meditarranean and captured individuals might be sold as slaves.

Actually, the poor probably had more to worry about--they could afford to lose less; they were surrounded by more criminals; and they had less influence with the justice system. So if you couldn't afford a Hortensius or Cicero, getting a dog was probably a good idea. Especially since it wasn't money they would steal. It would be clothing, utensils, or food. Possibly even a child. For a poor person this would be disastrous. I recall a reward being offered by a roman for the return of a kitchen pot.

Interpretation, not conjecture. I understand your point but ultimately somebody was going to get a triumph if the influential wanted him to despite any rules or regulations. The romans were noticeably ambivalent about these things. The problem was people were beginning to demand triumphs for more trival reasons - Why else would Cato bother raising a bill to restrict them? Was he merely envious?

Each soldier in marching order was carrying two stakes to erect the palisade around the camp. These would definitely be pulled up for the march afterward unless suitable timber was in abundant supply and the originals were not in good condition. Mind you, carrying two of those rain-soaked stakes on top of sixty pounds of gear was not going to be fun! Using stakes in this manner required preparedness and in some circumstances the legion would have to build a fort with whatever they found in the area. Roman engineers were keen to find sites that allowed this. These of course were marching forts, a temporary place for the romans to camp with reasonable safety. Permanent forts were built in a far more solid fashion (obviously) and were simply abandoned if no longer required.

Roman infantry maintained its standards up until the 3rd century AD. The gladius was developing during that period, becoming shorter and straighter. Partly this was due to the influence of the 'doctores', the gladiator trainers that were used (sometimes) to teach sword fighting. Perhaps there were other reasons for this but I don't know of any. Then the chaos of the 3rd century hits, everyone is rushed through training and finds themselves wielding slightly overlong daggers against their opponents. Not suprisingly, they tended to say 'To Jupiter with this..." and picked up the nearest spatha so they could keep a healthy distance from their opponent. Roman cavalry rose to meet this gap in military technique to some extent but it was also for two other reasons. One was the first beginnings of the fuedal horseman society of the dark ages and medieval period. The other was the need to counter increasing numbers of enemy horsemen. The infantry were no longer strong enough to dominate the battlefield, cavalry was becoming heavier and more aggressive, and given the potential shock value of a cavalry attack its not suprising that cavalry eventually rose to dominance.

I would like to point out that the manual written by Vegetius was very late in roman times. Vegetius bemoans the falling standards of the legions and his manual was intended to help return roman soldiery to their former glory. He failed in that respect, but he left us a priceless resource. It must be understood that these standards and drills are probably not the same as the earlier principate, or the republican armies, although I accept that he based his work on traditional methods.

Well I wasn't disputing the walue of the infantry. If well trained and motivated the most important part of any army. I was expressing my opinion that the Roman cavalry was indeed an effective force. That it is a misconception that the legions were week in cavalry. "I agree with ya, the equites were prestigious, but there is a difference between prestige and effectiveness." Now sorry but this is bullocks. A prestigious unit in any army is prestigious because it's combat value is very high, or because it is perfoming a vital duty. "Ditto. Also, there are only so many nobles." Well you make that remark based on what? Being a noble was wastly different in Roman society than it was in medieval societies. During the reign of the Emperor Augustus, the rank of equite was officially defined. One could become an Equestrian when one had some 400,000 sesterces. However if one lost his fortune he immediatly lost his status too. Only during the secound century AD. did the Equestrian class changed into more like a class of bureocracy. And one more misconception. The Auxilliary units where also effective, and loyal units. It was one of the most original and effective method of Romanization (it is debated wether it was intentional or not)... Prestige in miltary terms is not a function of ability - thats a misconception. There are plenty of prestigous units around the world today who couldn't hope to live up to their reputation against determined opposition. Does this unit get any perks? Extra pay? Lighter duties? Better food? Is their vital duty onerous? Do they have a record of victory or defeat? Do their soldiers get promotions? Are their officers senior members of society? Prestige is a matter of perception. Roman cavalry wasn't brilliant. If it was they'd have gone to more effort with it. Only with the decline of the heavy infantryman and the need for mobility against a mobile enemy was cavalry seen to improve. Julius Caesar for instance used gaulish allies as his cavalry. These men rode expensive pampered horses and weren't too keen on getting to grips with the enemy both for that reason, and also because they all really wanted to ride home and extort tolls from travellers. Auxillaries weren't always capable. When we look at the roman legions its easy to see them as an invincible war machine that crushed opposition like a steamroller. Not so. They fought long and hard to achieve the pax romana and without capable leaders in the field (military ability not being a prerequisite for roman command) Rome would have fallen much earlier. It was their ruthless determination - their competitiveness as a society - that saw them through.

As regards the rapes, it wasn't a matter of cost, it was for the thrill of taking the woman anyway. As regards our spanish villains, the authority in charge of the case would send word to the governor that Sanchez didn't turn up and could he see that he does? The governor would then have one of his staff assigned to the task, who would then set someone on finding him before the roman authority loses patience.

Not really suprising. Claudius wasn't exactly the ideal roman leader. He was physically impaired in a world where such children were exposed or abandoned. He had habit of telling very poor jokes and the more sophisticated wealthy romans may well have sneered at claudius behind his back.

Now that an odd twist of history. The british seem to have had a lot of regard for the roman times yet the romans on the continent were only too keen to keep Rome at a distance in its twilight years.

Most buildings were wooden framed and therefore vulnerable to structural failures when fire rages. The marble/brick/stone was often facing material and not load bearing. Stones can actually melt if they're soft and the temperature is high enough. Not liquify perhaps, but certainly distort. Stones with air pockets can actually burst apart. Obviously the more stout constructions such as temples were not wooden framed.

Yes they were. Primarily as hunting animals, guard dogs, or similar tasks. A few would have been pets but most people couldn't afford those luxuries - an animal needed a purpose to be kept. I don't see any record of dogs used as beasts of burden by ancient brits but then why would they? They had stronger and more tractable beasts available. Using dogs in warfare was along the lines of setting a pack on a fleeing criminal. Dogs are chaser carnivores (besides being annoying scroungers!) and running down their prey is what they're good at - like their wolf ancestors. A dog would need training to attack head on, but needed only instinct to chase.

There were no official requirements for a triumph. It was an honour bestowed by the senate/emperor in appreciation of the victors efforts. Now obviously, that meant that the common pleb wasn't going to get one. A pat on the shoulders and a few coins for him. So you needed victory and status to be awarded a triumph, not to mention popularity. Parading an unpopular figure in front of the roman mob was courting disaster. cato would have raised this bill to prevent too many abuses of the triumph - to make it more exclusive. Not requirements, more like restrictions on abuse of a privilege.

First of all is the murderer known? A sicarius would hide in dark alleys to commit his crimes and in all likeliehood wouldn't be discovered unless somebody recognised something he'd taken. Young men of good breeding would routinely wander the streets beating up passers-by, sometimes fatally, or even commit rapes. To some extent this was tolerated (drunken young men have always had a tendency toward violence after all) unless the result was serious enough. Once someone was recognised, an outraged citizen might complain to his patron, or perhaps consult a lawyer if he was wealthy. In either event, word gets about, a deal is done, and the armed guards arrive to carry off the careless criminal for some painful and probably public sentence. There was no organised approach to law enforcement as such, which seems a bit odd for the roman mindset.

Praetorians were often selected from the better soldiers. After all, it was considered a perk and the emperors were keen on being protected, even if their guards were a little temperamental (ahem). It is true they lived better than regular legionaries. As for battle experience, that became quite common in later times until the praetorians were disbanded, but then many of them might have already experienced battle. Having said that, Rome wasn't always at war. Many soldiers never fought a battle throughout their twenty five year service thus neither would the praetorians.

Yes and no. There would have been an asiatic influence if they'd stayed there but remember that invaders often adopt local attitudes and customs in the long run. Take for instance the normans in england. After a few decades the saxon influence was diluting the norman culture - and thats simply because they interacted with each other. Although the norman invaders were the conquerers and very much in charge, their serfs, servants, and childminders were saxon. To some extent it all boils down to numbers and culture. The romans 'romanised' other places because they made it such a good choice (you can either accept our generous politico-economic model or lucius here will call out the legion). The hunnic culture was deeply ingrained in its people but as soon as they settled in east europe their warlike stance faded. Also remember that although gaul might have been over-run with huns the people there were romanic and were in contact with romanised people outside, so there would have been a strong influence against .. erm... asianism.

Correct. The jews believed in one god. However it wasn't a unified faith, just a collection of priests and lay preachers with their own flocks.

Its often forgotten that most gladiatorial fights were small scale, not the huge spectacle they put on for nearly a third of a year at the colosseum (sorry, Flavian Amphitheater ). Provincial contests were less bloody apart from executions, and perhaps one or two deaths would end the performance. Whereas large numbers of animals would be seen at Rome, perhaps only a well-renowned ferocious bear would satisfy the men at the fort. The variety of of fights would be less in the provinces too. Less theatrical and more likely just a straight fight between two men. Also, there were private contests where wealthy people would entertain party-goers with a fight in the garden or whatever.

Or is that because the womens rights in Rome seem old-fashioned?

Erm... No. Rome lost the war more than once. However, we should not forget that politics was as important then as today. If your soldiers can't keep the enemy at bay, then lets cut a deal with them before they wreak havoc. Have we got enough gold? Admittedly some cultures really don't care much for talking - yet even the huns did.

Hilted helmets were available long before that although perhaps not everywhere. A thick flange of metal along the brow prevented swords from slipping down the front and hacking off your nose. The wide brim at the rear prevented swords from hacking off your head.

Don't forget the christian bias. Emperors like caligula and nero have been demonised for centuries as examples of excess and pagan decadence. We still see this viewpoint written and filmed today when we really should know better. Caligula was nonetheless a popular figure with the plebs. They weren't close to him, and therefore wouldn't encounter his sense of humour or sociopathic behaviour as courtiers did. He came to power in a tide of popularity and was murdered four years later despised by the senators. I don't think it was entirely proganda though. Hidden away in these stories is a young man with behavioural problems and the only solution having given complete control over the empire was to stick a knife in him. Repeatedly. He certainly had made enemies amongst the influential and lets face it, taunting a decorated and successful soldier like Cassius Chaerea wasn't an astute move. There is bias against Caligula in these stories of him. That seems to happen with all emperors who get the chop - its as if everyone wants to distance themselves from blame and justify that persons death. Very often it could be justified, at least from a certain viewpoint, but not always. I don't believe Caligula grew up in a worse enviroment than anyone else. Rome was an extraordinarily competitive society which almost guarantees skulduggery in high places. I do think his parents have some blame to carry. Children usually develop these personality faults when the parents are either incompetent or simply too busy to care. Germanicus was a busy man - was he a good father? Agrippina the Elder comes across as a woman of stout character but was she too cold? Even worse, we see Caligula paraded as a mascot for the legions dressed in mini-legionary gear (the source of his nickname). He grew up expecting attention and possibly became confused as to why his parents never had the same time for him. On the other hand, it may have been that Caligula was doted on and spoiled absolutely rotten by his parents. If so, then he would have grown up short-tempered, demanding, and thinking he could get away with anything. Come to think of it, that does sound familiar doesn't it?

Chainmail will resist a slashing blow which is why it was so popular in the ancient and medieval world (it can still be found in use today!). It doesn't protect against thrusting attacks very well as a sharp point easily penetrates.

Unlikely? I understand your point of view and you may well be right. But put yourself in Hannibals place. He's committed himself to marching across the alps to outflank the romans. Its not a cakewalk by any means, and he's suffered losses of men, horses, and elephants on the way. If he gives up, his credibility is ruined and the romans remain in a strong strategic position. If he carries on, he MUST find food or his expedition is doomed. One of his commanders is not as moral as the others. Notice that this commander makes the suggestion, and is clearly overruled. It would've have been more convincing if his commander had been given a few sharp words about morality but Hannibal isn't portrayed as considering this idea.

yes I agree by and large, but I would point out that gladiatorial combat became bloodier as time went on because the crowd (and the games promoters) wanted thrills and excitment. Throwing somebody to the lions? Oh they did that last year - yawn. Gladiators were indeed highly skilled fighters (at least those with any survival chances were) and it wasn't cheap to buy, train, and keep them. It is true that the crowd wanted a good fight. The poet Martial wrote a tale based on fact about a fight at the colosseum where both men were allowed the victory palm for delivering the thrills. As for poor fighting, that didn't always condemn a man despite the crowds disappointment. It was just as likely to cause a huge reverse to the career of the games promoter. The mood of a crowd often dictated a mans fate. A crowd galvanised by excitment wanted blood - and usually got it. A bored audience would cough and jeer, muttering about what a plonker the promoter was for putting together such a poor show. In fact, emperors often gave gladiators their freedom to please the crowd and this had no bearing on the owners investment. It was seen as the sign of a generous humane emperor who rewarded courage. The owner of course gritted his teeth and told the trainer to get Ursus The Angry up to scratch by the next games or else