caldrail

I don't know many civilian training aircraft that allow you to wear parachutes, thus 'bailing out' is a rare privilege and not one normally accorded trainees. Also, despite cockpits being generally uncomfortably cramped in light aircraft, they almost always allow forward/back seat adjustment and finding that you could not use the controls freely suggests you should have terminated the flight before it began. Free use of controls is part of the pre-flight procedure in every aeroplane.

Wikipedia offers info on Legio_X_Equestris (Sorry, but for some reason I can't cut and paste on this web page. Grrrrr.....) Freedmen were not citizens. They were second class members of the public, whilst classed as human in Roman law, were barred from public office. Claudius opened opportunities for them in governmental roles however, but this was later limited by Hadrian. There is a mention that they wore distinctive clothing - I don't know anything about that. Nonetheless some became seriously successful and wealthy (albeit sneered at). The problem with the late Republic is the warlords were powerful enough to begin seeing traditional cultural rights and restrictions as a means to an end, or perhaps as a pointless impediment to their plans. They were after all beginning to see the Roman Republic as a state that could be controlled, and indeed, Caesar had every intention of ruling absolutely.

The word 'Legion' means 'levy' and only acquires any sort of regimental air after the Reforms of Augustus. Before that, legion numbering was a matter of convenience and applied to the order of recruitment rather than any unit designation. You do seem to grasp this point I note. The requirement for citizen status is probably not that big an issue regarding troops raised locally. I wouldn't be surprised if warlords like Caesar simply had everyone swear an oath to satisfy the traditional requirement but then bear in mind slaves were not suitable as soldiers either, yet at times they were recruited, such as Augustus panicking after the Varian Disaster, when he demanded wealthy owners donate slaves to his levy (They ignored him, so he had some punished and took a number of slaves by order. These slaves had to be manumitted before they could serve, and were not equipped, billeted, or served alongside regular soldiers for fear of upsetting the legions)

Changes in the Praetorian Guard had happened before. They had been replaced wholesale with loyal soldiers by Severus when he marched into Rome for instance. Diocletian clearly didn't trust them. They were reduced in status and two loyal legions promoted to guard status, the Jovian and Herculians. The Praetorians persisted until Constantine eventually got rid of them altogether in favour of the Scholae Palatinae. As far as I'm aware, the term was only used after Constantine. Once the Scholae took the top slot, the Jovians and Herculians were no more than elite legions. The Praetorian Guard had traditionally been commanded by a Prefect, a role with close political ties and much sought after. Beware of Roman 'ranks'. I'm aware that most people routinely associate such titles with modern pyramidical organisation systems like our own armies, but there's evidence that the Romans used status a little bit differently from us. Constantine certainly served as a tribune - that's a senior military role classification, a sort of officer that could be assigned any major project within the legion - and in more than one office, but I don't see any mention of serving in the Praetorian Guard, although his father Constantius had been previously made a praetorian prefect by Maximius. I do however note that Constantine was serving in the court of Galerius as a military officer. The addition of 'First Order' had less to do with military promotion than acknowledging his status as a caesar's son and his record of military success. What makes the situation worse is that 'personal guard' were not always the Praetorians (Nero for instance had a unit of German guards rather then untrustworthy Praetorians). For a long time the Equites Singulares Augusti, an elite cavalry unit, had in fact been closer to the Caesars than the Praetorians. They had emerged at the time of Trajan and were later disbanded along with the Praetorians.

Actually the Goths had already looted Roman soldiery - they had won a victory against the Thracian garrison after the assassination plot by Lupicinius and Maximus failed and alerted the Gothic leaders to their situation. Perhaps you have over-estimated the scale of manufacture. It was all hand made, took plenty of man-hours to complete, and much of it was made in-house according to demand. There was no commercial production of armour from the Romans that I know of, and civilian manufacture only took place when the military found a need to supply beyond their normal capacity.

Lifestyle guides - the curse of sophisticated civilisation

It looks to me merely decorative. I made similar twists in metalwork classes as a youngster.

I once stumbled a book dated 1730 in a local second hand store. It's an odd experience coming across something like that.

The use of Roman numerals has little to do with tricking the public - it has more to do with legal and commercial tradition, and in any case, until recent decades it was assumed that the public knew a bit about latin and Roman numerals themselves.

Possibly. But by the time of Augustus, there were already some restrictions on volunterering for gladiatorial training. The rewards for success were undeniable since fighters kept a portion of their winnings - only fair since they were taking the risks. The reality is perhaps more illuminating. Newbie gladiators on the first professional fight had roughly one third chance of dying. This dropped to one in nine as they gained experience, value, and the option of becoming a trainer themselves. The average life expectancy of a gladiator was four years. They fought between once and three times a year usually. Volunteers agreed a term of service with a lanista, normally five years, but sometimes three or seven. For many, it was simply a way out of debt, albeit a risky one.

No, it isn't the same. Rome brought christianity together and adopted it as a cultural aspect. China is being colionised by the modern christianity which although not really any more united than in Roman times (Arguably less so) certainly sees China as virgin territory to exploit.

Context s very relevant, but then, the Roman games were something of a shock to the uninitiated. There's an account from the later imperial; period which decribes a young man at the games for the first time, at first horrified by what he sees, but gets caught up in the atmosphere and the exceitement of the crowd. The Romans were often very aware of their own failings. They were however unwilling to change if it meant giving up their chosen way of life.

I've thought about that. Most people at this point suggest a favourite book or two, but I don't really subscribe tothat way of doing things. I know this might not sound initially helpful, but focusing on one source is always prone to inviting bias into your knowledge - or at worst, complete nonsense. There is a certain satisfaction in piecing together a puzzle from various sources as long as you remain objective, because otherwise you tend to spend a lot of time rationalising between various accounts and again become a victim of bias. To begin with I guess that Osprey do a number of relevant volumes thatset the scene quite well. Most of my info doesn't actually come from dedicated volumes on late empire legions - it's gathered from various histories discussing the late empire as a whole - you can't go far in Roman hiostory without considering their military - they were after all a very martial minded nation state. Other than that keep reading. The clues will appear eventually.

It's about where this man was born. He was found dead in York, but was a foreigner by birth according to his DNA.

I wouldn't bother with that site unless you like WH40K. There's nothing Roman there!

Not to us romanophiles...

Pretty much up to the family concerned if we're talking about a small mausleum.

According to popular wisdom, I developed my weird side without any inspiration or assistance from David Bowie ( ). Truth is, I never really got into anything he did. His work was on the fringes of my experience rather than something closer to my heart such as the rash of increidble rock guitarists that blossomed in the eighties and nineties. At school back in my my much misguided youth there was only one kid who actually liked Bowies music - and yes, we thought he was a bit weird. That said, I have no choice but to admit Bowie had talent.

It's his behaviour. Constantine was a martial man (and successful too), a skilled propagandist (Visions in the sky), and had his own son executed for apparently sleeping with Constantines missus. Now I don't call that sociopathic as such, nor do I accept he needed to be, but he defintiely had a ruthless streak as any good Roman emperor required if he was going to survive and hold the reins. Nonetheless, Constantine was definitely shameless in his patronage of christianity which he supported for political reasons, not any spiritual motive.

No, that's not the case. Supply had originally been from fabricae located in the legionary forts or local civilian workshops if demand rquired it. The centralised fabricae system of the late empire did not last - it failed to supply the legions with the required items and thus as a military innovation it was a failure. Vegetius is actually quite wrong about helmets and cuirasses. For much of their history (including Vegetius' era) Roman soldiers wore chainmail predominantly, and the earliest cuirass were nothing more than square plates hung over the chest with second rate protection. The famous banded mail lorica segmentata was a rather late innovation (the earliest accepted date is around 9BC) and fell into disuse in the third century.along with the short Gladius. The heavier infantry armour therefore developed along with the domination of heavy infantry legions and their developed internal/localised supply network (forget most of what's said about Roman logistics - the Romans have been shown to be rather haphazard about logistics unless a situation required that troops perform, such as an ongoing campaign. During peacetime the whole organisation was rather less than the 'military machine' people like to describe it as. Soldiers were as often on leave as duty, officers pursued their leisure pursuits, and centurions were employed as civilian administrators as often as junior commanders) This is a useful indicator as it happens - it illustrates the period when legions were operating at their organisational best, such as it was. But the costs of supplying this level of equipment were crippling, never mind the requirement for skilled artisans to create it, and notice there is no suggestion anywhere that the Romans were able to maintain the internal artisan system. Since skilled troops had to go into battle along with everyone else, clearly these losses were felt in the civil wars of the later empire. In fact, although we have become used in the modern era to thinking of military innovation as an upward phenomenon - it isn't necessarily so, since armies use whatever they believe will work for them and very quickly reject that which they believe is an encumbrance - the Roman legions take a step back ward toward a more sustainable equipment level when their supply system no longer manages to cope with the accentuated demand or the costs of provision. PS - Welcom to UNRV

Exotic animals were expensive and difficult to obtain. They had to be caught and transported. It was a risk business because many animals died from dehydration, shock, privation, or simply drowned when a ship foundered in bad weather.

Roman production was not geared toward mass supply in the manner we do these days. Their production was basically a cottage industry - if you needed more output, you simply created a new workshop with up to a couple of dozen others. Therefore any issues with the manner of production were simply replicated on a larger scale. The problem was also compounded by the sponsorship of new recruits. In the late empire, recruits were given a sum of money to equip themselves, which invariably they spent on something else more important at the time. When this money was stopped and the central supply attempted, it only resulted in discipline issues as recruits felt the pinch (also bear in mind that Roman soldiers paid their way daily - bribery and purchase were parts of ordinary life - the Roman legions had long since officially published a schedule for acceptable bribe rates (from Tacitus, concerning the rebellion in Pannonia) Roman roads are often interpreted by us in modern terms - ie - they were supposedf to be used for trade and transport. This is however wrong, as trade was usually local. There is a documentary on television abiout military logistics in which the presenter looks at the remains of an amphora found at Vindolanda on Hadrians Wall, which was identified as coming from a farm in Spain. The presenter assumed the goods arrived direct by order - very unlikely - whereas it was probably shipped to Britain in opoortunistic dealing and purchased by the military from a merchant closer to the fort. Roads were primarily for military and polical communication. Anyone could use them, but long range shipping was more often done by water where possible. It's the same phenomenon as the Silk Road - no goods were ever transfwerred from Rome to China or back directly - they always went from merchant to merchant. To add to our supply issues then, we have issues of personal reward, not only within the military, but those dealing with supply. This was a period when recruitment was done by agents who were bribed to go away. Instead of taking men from settlements as desired, they simply bought mercenaries who were cheaper and hence made a big profit from the role. External supply would have had exactly the same issues. During the glory days of the empire legions made much of their own equipment in their own workshops. They made and sold what they needed. Once you add commercial siupply, when it might become unprofitable to supply the military, the situation was out of legionary control.

Movement in Rome wasm't really restricted. The wealthiest people often lived alongside the poorest across the city, although the Palatine was a fairly upmarket area. Bearing in mind how many slaves were active in Rome in that era it's hardly likely anyone would give her a second glance other than occaisional male interest - but of course, if she's a slave, she's the property of someone else, and a dalliance without dpermission from the owner invites legal recompense. The Romans hae a practical but extremely chauvanistic attitude toward relationships at this time too. A woman of good character would ordinarily be in the company of a chaperone, a guardian, or a family member. This was of course exactly the same time when lots of leiosure time and available wealth meant that women of more daring character were starting to get up to some serious malarkey when no-one was looking. Women deemed of poor character were fair game I'm afraid. One lad of high status was tried in court of raping a prostitute. Not because he'd forced himself upon her - she was a whore by trade for crying out loud - but because the drunken young man had kicked in her front door to reach her.

There is a big difference between structures named after construction by the Romans themselves and those named afterward for commercial or or landmark purposes.

I definitely fall into the 'B' category I'm afraid. bnefore Constantines patronage, christianity was a series of small unconnected cults of varying credibility. With his victory in the civil war and accession to domination of the empire, he needed something to put his crumbling nation back together again, and since Christianity had a social function that was more authoritarian than pagan worship, his patronage had a useful civic function - exactly as he intended.