caldrail

The street level has commercial premises, traders and artisans whose trade counter is open to the street. The middle floors have tenants crowded into small rooms with little furnishings and no running water or cooking facilities. Very little heating either given the fire risk of these wooden framed flats. The highest attic level is worst. Freezing in winter and blisteringly hot in summer. Throughout the block rats and pests are evident. The entire building was built quickly and it shows. Cracks have appeared everywhere and plaster is crumbling off the walls. The family next door got evicted for debt last week and the landlord is putting up rents to cover the cost of his litigation. Didn't get much sleep last night. The people below us had a right arguement over something. Then some idiot upstairs threw his mess over a wagon in the street. The slanging match went on and on. Never mind the wagon got stuck at the corner for an hour or two. Oh well. Off to the granary in the morning and pick up my dole I suppose...

Inferior weapons would have done nothing for moral or survival though...

Was there any greek connection? I'm thinking of Atlas holding up the world.

I'm suprised that the romans didn't temper their steel. Are you sure? I would have thought a soft steel blade wouldn't have lasted much longer than bronze. Or was it that early romans didn't? As regards to technology in ancient weaponry, don't be misled. It isn't like today where technology can improve performance considerably. Back then, a blade either cut you or not. The bludgeoning damage was a function of weight and method of application rather than any intrinsic advantage. However - the shape and weight of a weapon as opposed to a particular armour type, given the correct style of fighting to take advantage of it, is the key. Chainmail breaks on a sharp point, so an impaling or thrusting weapon is better. Plate armour resists this and crushing damage too, although a heavy weight might deform the armour and injure its wearer. You see what I mean? Its horses for courses. If you use the right weapon with the right training, style, and aggression against a particular defence then you have an advantage. Otherwise you don't.

Ok, so he isn't in immediate risk of discovery and humiliation at the hands of nasty jailers. So.... How about getting metal from a bucket? There'd be one or two lying around a jail, and if its past its best, would the sympathiser feel moved to give him a bucket 'as a toilet'? Having done so, it would have been a ready source of materials to construct the items he desires. The metal would be tougher to work with, but iron fittings weren't exactly substantial. Its not impossible for a creative prisoner to make good use of it.

No not really. I accept that massed ranks offset the need to be accurate, but I think you'll find archery is more demanding than that. As I stated, an archer would want to be accurate - its a matter of professional pride. As for the centurions, they'd be a bit busy to notice you were aiming. They might even approve. Perhaps its more likely they'd beat you for leaving your thumb behind!

There were indeed checks and balances. Public opinion plus a great many laws and taboos relating to moral behaviour. Having as much power as they did, I don't think extrovert emperors felt so restrained as common men.

Morality in Rome actually means more or less the same thing in our society. We tend to ignore such things when its convenient or rewarding, and they did too. We have superior investigation techniques that keep us in check - they had slaves to spill the beans. Its all a question of checks and balances. Morality is an ideal. Few of us come close. As for palaces, these are displys of wealth, power, and ego that people sometimes build for themselves. Again, its little different today. We see millionaires buying large slices of land for outrageous houses they can't fill. You raise an interesting question about accusation, which I actually agree with to some extent. However a public performance is just that, so there were witnesses. The authors may disapprove of such 'infamy' but generally the plebs were thrilled to bits to be entertained by their leaders.

In that instance, yes. Its the waste chucked out of the window of the plebian dwellings at night that would have caused a good deal of mess. They had no facilities for carrying away solid waste. Or was that only a few lazy individuals? Did the responsible majority carry their waste somewhere to dispose of it sensibly?

I take the view that people then are fundamentally no different than today. Their culture was different, their mindset varied from ours to some degree, but they were still human beings and as such we respond as social animals in certain ways. Strategy? Commodus may well have had that in mind, but Nero didn't. The reason I see caligula as a psychopath is that his behaviour was different from the crowd. He made no attempt to dignify himself, and poured scorn on anyone who did. He had no respect for anyone. That after all was the reason for his demise - he made fun of Cassius Charea's soft voice despite his proven courage. No successful soldier of Rome is going to like being taunted as a poof. Caligula refused to conform and that marks him as a psychopath. Ok, you remain unconvinced. You stress the role of advisors. To some extent we can include Nero in that, because he did listen to cronies. So did Commodus until he learned not to trust them. Caligula did not attract cronies in the same way. He was not going to take advice from a lesser mortal. However - a leader of a conquest state does not remain in power by being nice, nor by being swayed by voices in his ear. Certainly there were people who sought power by whispering advice such as Sejanus or Cleander, but I can't recall any of them surviving long. These men were in positions of power that allowed them to express themselves in terms of public image. A slave couldn't. Nor could many senators for fear of ridicule. All three became confident individuals for different reasons. Caligula did so because he wanted to test the limits of his power and couldn't find any obstacle. Nero because he discovered the 'celebrity' within himself. Commodus did so because his father Marcus Aurelius had brought him up to attain the throne. It was unfortunate that Commodus was 'not a moral man'

Agreed, but I haven't come across any specific mention of dung collectors/merchants. Now that doesn't discount the work of slaves, but the condition of roman streets wasn't much different from any other period in history. They were filthy and smelled a lot. Remember that permanent stepping stones were laid across the road between pavements in Pompeii.

Well.. If you want detail, you have to consider more than just an emperor as a performing artist. I included DJ to show that it wasn't just the obvious three that performed in public. Others did too, although for one reason or another they aren't remembered for doing so. Was that lack of star-quality. I think so. DJ was a second-rate performer and no-one enthused about his performance. All the more reason for him to buy the empire - he stood no other chance of absolute power. The public of course didn't believe he deserved it as history shows. The word psychopath is misunderstood. It doesn't mean caligula was an axe-wielding maniac although killing people obviuosly didn't bother him. It means he didn't fit in with other people to the point of violence. Caligula had a nasty sense of humour. He enjoyed making fools of people. Also I detect a certain petulance in his behaviour. So, I would say that he wanted attention. Although he was applauded as emperor after the dreary rule of tiberius he could see gladiators getting applause and felt envious. He wanted all the applause, he wanted people to believe he was the best, that he was... special. Because he had grown up without enough love and support. Nero is in a class by himself. He had style, something to say. After the suffocating presence of his mother had been removed (finally) he wanted nothing more than to enjoy himself. Well he was emperor wasn't he? Why couldn't he do what he wanted? Commodus was widely known for his prowess with a left-handed style, something he was proud of. Yes, he did fix fights. By giving his opponents wooden practise swords the outcome was loaded in his favour considerably. But then, Commodus was there to demonstrate his virility, not to have it challenged. He was emperor. It wouldn't do to have the ruler of the roman world carried off on a stretcher and have his throat cut before dumping his body in the tiber. Sure, plenty of emperors came to sticky ends (commodus did too - his intended arena victim had him strangled). Commodus was a man who...well...cheated in order to win. That was his nature. He developed a public 'image' comparing him to the ancient hero Hercules. You know, I can't help wondering if Commodus had some sort of hang-up over sex. We know he had a groinal swelling. Was he compensating by these displays of aggression? Regarding Tony Blair, I place him on par with DJ. But thats just my opinion. It wasn't that important. Caligula might have wanted to shock his audience, in order to gain attention if nothing else. Nero didn't. He wanted fun and didn't see why the class system should prevent him from getting his kicks. Commodus wanted to impress, not shock.

Or something made from straw? Perhaps a loose stone conceals a small altar with symbols carved into the stones behind? Christianity doesn't dictate that a full altar and ceremonial set is required for worship.

Urine was a useful commodity for fulleries, as a bleach for laundry, and would be left in pots for collection more often than not. Solid waste was thrown onto the street - a particular hazard of night-time travel around the streets. I'm not aware that anyone was employed to sweep this away, it was probably like most periods in history - the waste decomposed or was washed away by rain. The smell must have been awful, and it certainly would've attracted pests. However - since Pliny the Elder describes using solid waste for fertiliser, then someone made some effort to gather it. But was that purely a rural activity, or did someone collect dung in the towns and cities? I suspect the former. Yes, middens have been found.

People like Caligula, Nero, Didius Julianus, Commodus etc played in front of the public for two reasons. The first was ego. They were people who wanted adoration - What better way to gain that than public performance? Our Tony Blair has done the same thing. The second was a more practical reason - it improved the public image of the ruler. It showed he was superior, clever, artistic, creative, or just about anything else he could claim. Of course, Caligula thought he was better than everyone else. As a psychopath, he had nothing but contempt for people below him and that included senators. He was after the most powerful and important person on the planet wasn't he? I seem to remember he put a foreign ruler to death for wearing a purple cloak. So it comes as no suprise that he decided to prance about in front of the public. Poor old Caligula. He just wanted to be loved, but he just couldn't handle it when he was. Nero on the other hand was a born celebrity. He really was. Although his talent for music and theater wasn't exceptional, he wasn't going to let that get in the way of achieving applause from his adoring audience. Didius Julianus is a little different. He pretended to be a gladiator when he was consul - why? - to prop up his image and political support. I don't think he made a good impression though. Didius comes across as someone who just didn't shine. Commodus wanted to display manhood - his virility. He wanted to be admired for his prowess in the arena, to take a share of the adulation that successful gladiators attracted.

Didn't the romans themselves have problems with fimaly trees? They often claimed famous or heroic ancestors. Julius Caesar claimed to be descended from the goddess Venus didn't he?

True, but the sahara is worse today than it was 2000 years ago. North africa back then had a slightly wetter climate that made it easier to irrigate and farm. A drier modern climate and the result of over-grazing by domestic animals has made it what it is today. Of course the desert interior was always as arid as we see it now, its just that the desert has grown in size since.

I have to strongly disagree with that. During the periods of that time Constantine sought out images in his dream that God came and talked to him. It is understandable if the Western Romans did not change as soon as this happened. Although Constantine put an end to this as soon as he saw his dream. Even at before the Christianity spread, the Eatern Roman Empire held no gladitorial fights. Constantine immediately reformed his empire to become strong Christian believers. If God came to him in his dream to spread the word why would he continue to do this. Just a note on the Roman pagan like the Roman Christian. Before Christianity came the only thing the Roman pagans did for entertainement was attend gladitorial fights. Though when the Christianity came it has been stated that so did the gaditorial fights shortly after. Constantine was not a devout christian, nor did he really believe in christianity. He chose to bcome christian on his death-bed just in case there was some truth in it, and that way he could absolve himself from his sins which were considerable. As for the vision, I really don't believe that was genuine. Constantine used christianity to weld his crumbling empire together shamelessly. I agree, christians of the time were as bloody as pagans. Of course they were. That was how people were at the time, and romantic notions of christian belief shouldn't cloud how we see them. Christians of the time kept slaves and went to church on a sunday then off to the arena to watch them kill each other. Its true that christian belief taught a more humane view of the world, but it would take a long long time for that to become human nature. It was a violent time that bred violent people, christian or not. Christianity today isn't the same that was taught to romans. It's changed over the centuries and is a lot softer in tone than it once was. Gladitorial combat survived in the provinces in a much reduced form after the prohibition, but it did take some time to die out. The killing of animals in the arena survives to this day.

No self respecting archer would want to be inaccurate. Unlike muskets, which were inherently awful, the arrow is a very accurate weapon indeed, as demonstrated by primitive cultures since the year dot.

No they haven't. They learned the hard way in WWI after the amateurism in the 18th and 19th century. Fighting a european war forced the american armed forces to adopt a different approach. The same lesson was reinforced inWWII, Korea, and finally in Vietnam. Why did it take so long for the US to become more professional? Because they didn't want to fight foreign wars. Now that the US is involved in constant brush wars (particularly now that the media has made the horror of war too real for the stay-at-home public), the need for professionalism has become a major factor.

No, we're not, especially from the perspective of the romans. Its true there was terrible poverty back then just as now, but life was usually simple. I think people were often friendlier in day to day dealings too. The flip side of course, is that life was often bloodier and always a great deal shorter.

Britain was perhaps more of a co-operative society than a truly romanised part of the empire, something that survives in the mind-set of britons today I think. I also think this happened in the middle east too, though less so in africa. Despite the early success of Augustus in colonising germany, the germans rightly or wrongly decided that Arminius was the chappie to lead them and they threw away roman culture. How ironic it was that they then viewed Rome with envy in later centuries.

Like any other prisoner, he would have used anything that did the job. Perhaps he smuggled in a discarded blade? Or did he steal one from a jailer? Did he bribe someone with whatever scraps of food he had left-over? As long a the metal had a robust angled edge, he could begin to carve with it. Or did he adapt an eating implement? Uncommon perhaps, but then prisoners get very creative when staving off boredom. Keeping an altar in jail would be awkward I think. It requires effort to create the artifacts, to pursue the rituals, etc. The jailers may not have approved. However since this is part of your plot I would say almost any symbol appropriate to christianity, albeit of a small and humble kind, would have sufficed in those circumstances. No prisoner could afford to be fussy.

Agreed. I see history as a jigsaw puzzle where you can't see the picture on the box. Not all the pieces are there, but you can still see a picture if you carefully fit together what you have. But that means all of it. Study of one field is difficult without considering others. Everything should be in context, or understanding is lost.

No, it isn't. Wonderful drama, but not right. Roman racing chariots were much lighter in construction. The Ben Hur film uses triumphal chariots that the horses are struggling to pull for the entire race. Ben Hurs nemesis would not have raced. It would have destroyed his social standing. He would have sent a slave to race for him with strict instructions to win at all costs. As for the scythes on the wheels, the referees simply wouldn't have allowed that.