caldrail

I'd like to see you pull a bow without a thumb! Not the actual pulling hand, that requires the two strongest fingers. Its the bow hand. You're going to get bruises on your forehead without thumbs.

Possibly correct, but I have heard that roman *or* has been unearthed in context with Tiberius. He may may not have been a dirty old man, but perhaps he did enjoy the roman equivalent of 'Playboy'?

Many of the older famous families simply died out as suggested above. Wars had a part to play in this. The Julio-Claudians went a bit further and destroyed themselves in plots. Its believed that most, if not all, important families in the late empire were descended from slaves. Actually I think its a terrible loss that your ancestors are unknown, and so do other people, which is why tracing your family tree is so popular these days. So much is lost. We discover who they were, perhaps what they did, their relationships, and when they died. But thats it isn't it? I want to know who these people really were, what they were like, what lives they led. I must admit I haven't traced mine though. Too busy discovering roman lives!

Weren't they the same people that gave german knights a bloody nose during the middle ages?

Science is the application of logic, art is the application of intuition. The study of history, be it archaeological or theory, requires both to arrive at a solid conclusion. A couple of nights ago I saw Timewatch on TV, discussing the find of thirty roman skeletons in York. Some had iron rings around the ankle, some were buried face down, all were decapitated and some heads swopped. Huh? After much speculation and research, the people investigating came to the conclusion that these weren't slaves, criminals, prisoners-of-war, or roman casualties. They were members of the roman administration, executed on the orders of Caracalla for getting in his way before he came to power. Now that I hadn't expected.

Reading and writing would have earned them 'immunes' status very quickly, or the occaisional administration duty failing that. Desirable, but most soldiers were very likely illiterate.

I thought lictors were the same as bailiffs?

Did he choose people who could already ride? Or did he have them trained? I'm a little suspicious that everyone was a horse-rider back then. Its not quite the same, but I recall the US Cavalry of the 19th century, who recruited people who hadn't sat on a horse in their lives before putting on uniform, and they weren't anything like John Wayne and his men. Remember the modern armies employ soldiers who can't drive. They have to teach many of them. I personally think Caesar had his centurions gather enough men who could already ride. Caesar was too canny to rely on amateurs, although his gaulish allies weren't as capable as he'd hoped.

Not revisionism - romanticism. Exactly what I suffered from before I got more serious about roman history. I'd watched Derek Jacobi, Peter Ustinov, Laurence Olivier, Kirk Douglas etc and swallowed all that nonsense In one way it was a good thing - it got me into roman history. Funny thing is though, as I strip away the myth and legend I discover things that might seem a little more mundane to some but are just as fascinating. For me, the romans are becoming real people, not square jawed shakespearean actors. I love it.

I doubt swimming was as widespread as it seems. For romans, bodies of water were obstacles they regarded with superstition. A river wasn't just flowing water. An angry god would drown you. Bear in mind that a legionary in battle order probably struggled to stay afloat. Thats why bridges and fords were so important. I'm pretty sure Caesar never ordered his men to swim across the Rhine. Historically swimming is an uncommon pursuit, although a vigorous and healthy roman lad would likely view it as a manly challenge!

So then - The mother of invention is necessity. Without military threat, the need to compete in technology lessens. In commercial terms however the romans failed. Although they became brilliant organisers and experts in logistics on a grand scale, they didn't evolve technology except on a local level, as a result of applied engineering. So we see clever pumps for raising water, or water driven stone-cutters, or similar things that are used in one locality but not generally adopted.

I don't think paganism ever really died out - there would always be people who chose not to accept christianity and we see plenty of witch-hunts & inquisitions even to this day.

Such contact was tenuous and via a long trade route. There was no diplomacy between them although both empires knew of each others existence. Roman gold reached china, chinese silk reached Rome.

I must apologise - I've just uncovered roman road maps that were in common use especially for couriers. They weren't geographically correct, but were drawn in a 'strip-map' format showing road junctions and rest-stops. A bit like motorway diagrams we get today.

The throwing arm only needs to lift a sling - Its the rising motion that pulls the sling and its load over the top. Are you using too heavy a missile? You need to use ropes, not springs. Yes it is hard to twist the 'spring'. Put your back into it soldier!

You're not a scientist then?

But you still require a connection between ideas to bring technology forwards. Roman communication wasn't geared for that. Also, as I've already stressed, roman conservatism didn't really provide a society receptive to technology. Except of course, when it helped them win battles. But even then the generals would have raised an eyebrow at some schemes. There was a way of doing things, and that was the roman way

Because it was taken for granted. Actually the benefits didn't disappear (hence the envious germans) but for romans it was a case of... well.. We're all citizens now, right, so why strive to earn it?

Competitve? Yes. Calm? Are you kidding? Keeping the peace was nearly impossible with riots and plots bubbling away. Receptive? As I said, the men with wealth to invest didn't have much time for foolish notions that didn't fit their class society.

This should be a separate thread, but what's the evidence for your claim? Were citizens less likely to serve in the army than non-citizens? If so, was this always true or only sometimes? When and when not? In my opinion, you're reversing cause and effect. It was only after citizenship became nearly worthless that it was extended to all, not that it became worthless by extending it to everyone. In favor of my claim, I can offer evidence that the value of citizenship declined prior to extension. Can you, in favor of your claim, offer any evidence that previous extensions led to a decline in the value of citizenship? If not, then the evidence doesn't support your causal story. Oh? Many served in the legions for twenty five years to earn their right to be roman citizens. That was a hard bargain and the the reward well earned in my view. The roman way of life had great appeal back then - something we're not too aware of these days. Why else would german tribesmen look enviously at the people across the river? Sure, they were pushed, but they didn't fight too hard to keep their hereditary homelands did they? When the germans overran Rome, they adopted roman airs and graces (must have been almost a farce at times). They wanted to be roman - in order to enjoy roman life - and that was the primary reason why anyone wanted to a citizen back then.

Maps were derived from the work of surveyors and sailors. All maps were hand drawn, rare, and therefore valuable. They would also look a bit basic to our eyes too.

You're right, it does sound a bit hypocritical - what you seem to be saying is that the salves themselves didn't cause the problem, but that slavery and it's functions did, which really means we agree. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There was no single reason for the failure to advance. Actually the romans were quite sophisticated in many fields, largely driven by military pressure. Were it not for superstition and the senatorial desire for the status quo, sooner or later someone would have made a discovery that put two and two together. The technological pot was simmering, not coming to the boil. The wealthy classes simply had no reason to adopt machines wholescale because life was too easy. Once the roman west declined (or struggled as in the case of the 3rd century AD) the heat came off. Something similar nearly happened in late medieval times - the monasteries were beginning to take the first steps toward an industrial society, brought crashing to a halt by Henry 8th when he closed most of them for personal gain. It seems the natural progression of ideas and concepts requires a receptive, calm, and competitive society to succeed. The romans never quite attained that, and the decline took away their chance to become a truly industrialised culture.

There is another reason why Rome did not complete the conquest of Caledonia - and that's Domitian. I don't think he was happy that Agricola was covering himself with glory, soon to return in triumph, possibly with legions at his back. Agricola was recalled to Rome by Caesar and that put an end to the campaign. The forts were abandoned incomplete, and the troops retreated behind the wall. Domitian would have justified his envious paranoia by stating that a conquest was unnecessary - Caledonia had been pacified.

The romans were nothing like as clever as you suggest. Time and again they were slaughtered by a failure of leadership. Take Jerusalem. They were told to build a circumvallation. As they did so, the jews counterattack. The soldiers have left their weapons lying about even in a combat zone. Almost a disaster, and Titus nearly had his officers executed for the humiliation of it. Roman soldiers were taught to fight without question. It was their commanders - the optio's, centurions, tribunes etc, that would make or break a legion.

Hmmm.... I would attempt to draw the enemy across the path of my reinforcements if possible, thus leading them into a nasty ambush, or even have them surrounded by their own folly. Attack Rome? Tch tch tch...