caldrail

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.

The late empire soldiers were once again forced to supply their own gear. Numbers of men under arms had occaisionally risen to huge numbers - the worst case being during Diocletians Tetrarchy when paranoia between the four leaders resulted in an arms race. That meant raditional means of supply no longer worked. Strictly speaking a Roman soldier had always been responsible for equipping himself - it was just that the Late Republic/Principate underwrote the costs and made the soldiers suffer stoppages in the pay to fund the equipment. Much of what the legion needed had been made by their own artisans in the major fort's workshops ort by local workers under contract when demand exceeded supply. Later, this system failed. Attempts were made to introduce a central supply system with larger scale 'factories' making stuff, but again, this did not work well. Bear in mind that the funding of military equipment was often made by the noble/politician put in charge if the local supply couldn't meet demand, but with money being far less available in the late empire (ironically the increase in coinage shows how little value late empire money had) that sort of sponsorship was less prevalent. Also the idea of booty from war used to fund military activity was less available too. Further, troops were often unpaid in later times thuis could not afford equipment anyway, so simply made do. basically then Vegetius is right. Many troops were badly under-equipped in the late empire. But before we settle on a financial answer - it also has to be said that Roman strategy and tactics were changing. The old form of heavy infantry dominance was no longer working effectively when battles were gnerally smaller, forces more mobile and less confrontational, and so the Romans had begun relying more on 'low level warfare' as Dr Goldsworthy puts it, such as ambushes and raids. The Romans were actually quite good at it, which was just as well, because the skills of fighting large set piece battles had largely been lost.

Basically because he wasn't seen as warped at the time, spomnsored civic improvement, and made sure he got the credit. basically it was politics, just like today.

I'm getting fed up of being labelled. Categorised. And mostly in some derogatory fashion. So I've decided to issue a public statement. Am I gay? No. Absolutely not. Never was, never will be. If two blokes want to go off together and do whatever two blokes do to each other, fine, get on with it - Just don't bother me with it. I know quite a few people will have heard otherwise and find that hard to believe - some will refuse to believe it because it makes them look like fools or bigots - but that's the way it is. All my sexual partners were female. I'm single due to circumstance, not preferences. Am I a Conshy? No. Absolutely not. Never was, never will be. For the uninitiated a 'Conshy' is slang for "Concientious Objector", or someone who refuses military service out of some moral, political, or religious objection. I would point out that I tried to join the RAF twice in my younger days. The first time I was turned away because "There are no vacancies". The second time I was told I couldn't hear properly. It is true that my rejection eventually came as a relief. My teenage urge to serve my country had wilted with experience of the Air Training Corps and an increasing desire to forge my own path rather than follw my fathers footsteps. As it happened, by my twenties I wanted to be a musician, a path I followed for many years. But despite these meanderings through life, I have had no issues with military service from any concientious grounds. Am I Trying To Live On Benefits? No. Absolutely not. Never was and never will be. Truth is, I've been told in a letter from more than a year ago that I'm no longer eligible. So I couldn't even if I wanted to. As it happens, I like my creature comforts and that requires I pay for them, thus I want a profitable living even if no-one particularly wants to provide me with one. A shame really, because I come well qualified, capable, reliable, adaptable, and put up with no end of personal discomfort to turn up on time every day I'm required to earn my keep. Finally.... There you go. My statement is complete. I'll swear to these facts in a court of law or on anything sacred because they're true. I know they are. No-one can take that away from me, however hard they try.

Late imperial activity in Germania was often quite scurrilous (the legions were as bad as German raiders) and bear in mind that at that time soldiering was not a profession partuilcularly liked, valued, or supported. Troops were often unpaid and had to make do with part time civilian jobs (hence the banditry). Political coherence was beginning to fragment and settlements were often making their own deals and contracts for security rather than depend on badly led, poorly paid, reluctant imperial legions. Worse, the German tribes were co-operating more now that Roman foreign policy of divide and rule was failing and just as aggressive as they had always been. Your possibilities are quite open. Troops pay chests, booty, tribal treasures. If your characters are taking something to Egypt however, it does make sense that the object originated from there - a useful plot device?

Caesar had an eye for the ladies but remember he was also a man of some status - not only from a good family, he reportedly claimed ancestory from the Gods, and having consorted with the Queen of Egypt (and the King of another state if rumours were true), clearly he was a man who liked to be seen with celebrities. Whether Caesar indulged in the Roman male habit of having sex with slaves (they were property - he had every right) isn't known. Whilst his dalliances are part of Roman legend he was also a very motivated and busy man. It certasinly isn't impossible that a woman could attract a Caesar (Sulla had been bewitched by a lady at the games) and the exploits of the later Caesars demonstrates that virile pursuits were a perk they tended to enjoy to the max. I would point out that Caesar was a very ambitious man, one who had political domination as his goal from the very start, and also a man who was not shy of ordering death and injury should it suit his puroposes. For instance, during the Gallic War he had Gaul prisoners released with their right hand chopped off - a clear startement and propaganda device - and had Cleopatra's younger sister Assinoe - who had tried to grab power and failed - publicly humiliated with a view to ritual killing later to please his important paramour. Caesar cancelled the execution when the crowd sympathised with the poor girl. So - how would a girl turn Caesars head? Firstly, she is going to have be somewhere where she will get noticed. Then she must find a means of getting noticed. If she's really serious about this, she may well want something else to tempt Caesar besides good looks and skimpy clothes. What can she offer politically? Militarily? Financially? In terms of social status? Ambitious girls are better at these sort of machinations than me but I think you get the picture.

Yes. The Crimea, or Taurica as it was known, was added to the province of Lower Moesia after Nero set a military expedition loose in that area, though his death brought the campaign to a halt.

The problem with the article is that it stresses the subject title, Roman Crimea. As Primus Pilus pointed out previously the area was never under secure occupation and represents a marginal frontier region. The article rather gives the impression of something more permanent (as articles often tend to favour pro-Roman arguments). I can't see anything actually wwrong with the information - just don't get carried away with assumptions.

For the average joe, I wouldn't imagine huge differences at all. The enviroment is squalid, cramped, expensive. In Rome, tenements house families packed into rooms. The lower floors are noisy and vulnerable to crime. The attic freezes you in winter and boils you in summer. There's no financial support for the poor either - none of modern social provisions, although they did have a corn dole if you had a permanent address. But then, the supply of cirn was variable according to circumstance. Augustus was obliged during one shortage to exile "useless mouths" from Rome. Claudius got pelted with stale crusts from an angry crowd. Water supply is an interesting issue. It seems local initiatives sometimes did supply cleaner water via aquaducts direct to homes in places like Herculaneum. In Rome, with much denser population and high rise apartments (the highest was nine floors - most averaged five to seven) the supply of water meant a walk to the local fountain and back again, upstairs, with a heavy load of water. I'm not hugely convinced the supply was entirely clean, certainly not by standards, but most likely better than typical towns that relied on wells or nearby rivers. Water from natural watercourses was used by human and animal alike for all sorts of things and if you were downstream of a settlement, the water was unlikely to be as healthy. With poor urban drainage and stagnant water malaria was rife in Rome as the imperial period progressed. In short, despite changes in culture and facilities, conditions between imperial Rome and Reformation London resulted in pretty much the same life expectantcy.The Tiber did not achieve the same terrible reputation as a sewer in the way that the Thames did but there must have been similarities.

I do think a lot of romanophiles get carried away with this concept of romanization. The Romans never, at any stage, romanized any society, or at less not overtly. They most certainly persuaded native leaders in new provinces to go latin so that they could be plugged straight into the Roman political system along with tribal loyalties, but the people themselves? As long as provincials paid taxes and behaved themselves, the Romans simply let them carry on with their lives. It is true that urbanisation was encouraged under the Augustan Franchise and that presented a familiar latin mode to cities around the empire, but only at the higher stages of development were Roman modes dominant. Many minor settlements were the same as provincial societies - hybrids, with a mix of latin and native influence. After all, the Romans said themselves that it was Gaul who had "most closely emulated them", which does imply not everyone was so keen to do away with traditional ways of life. For that matter, there is plenty of archeological evidence to show the persistence of native culture right through the imperial period and beyond. Of course the findings are no suprise. Although the Romans thought highly of cleaniness, clearly their cities were not particularly clean. They did, after all, stress the importance of the cloaca maxima, Rome's famous sewer tunnel. We are talking of a people who washed their clothes using human urine as a bleach, or even used the same urine to wash their teeth. We know that the insulae, or tenement blocks, were infested with vermin as much as much harassed tenants. And the waste from those buildings? More often then not, thrown out of a window into the street. Thing is though - I find it odd that the Romans complain more about the noise of urban life than they do about the smell/

Hadrian was hardly humble. He had one architect punished for criticising a building plan drawn up by Hadrian himself, who considered himself talented in that direction.One does not grab power in the manner Hadrian did if humility was a primary characteristic.

It has to be said (although I've never been there) that Pompeii and nearby Herculanuem are the most fantastic time capsules. That's what I love about Roman history. With such literary and archeological resources, one can almost get to know them. That's history, in my view, not dates and events, but the actions and reactions of the people who lived in former times.

Perhaps. Sometimes it brings huge problems. One Hungarian or Romanian (I don't remember which) found a silver hoard in a quarry where he worked. He's dead now, murdered, and the hoard is locked away in London with a serious international legal wrangle over who actually has the right either to own or sell it.

I didn't know there was any doubt that the Vikings reached that area. Russia is named after their presence in what is now Ukraine and Crimea. The Varangian Guard of the Byzantines was essentially recruited from scandanavians. Of course this find is evidence of their presence, which I believe is a better context.

I saw a report on BBC News recently about how the western nations are going to have to set aside their usual taste for meat dinners and instead gorge themselves on insect protein, because the insects are cheaper and require far less land to produce in quantity. The problem is that the worlds population is growing. And that is why eating insects instead of meat isn't a solution to the problem of starvation - it's merely feeding the problem. You see, the natural limit of human population has always been around two billion. Whether it was war, disease, diet, natural disaster, or whatever, our global population never really challenged this number even when civilisation was invented. Unfortunately we're now getting better at avoiding death, so now the populations of the world are getting bigger, especially in those regions who had previously seen childbirth as a lottery where having more kids was an investment in the future. The thing is, if struggling populations are fed and cared for, they breed. That's simply how humans behave, just like almost every other species of life on the planet. All we're doing with these humanitarian initiatives to rid the world of hunger is creating a bigger problem in the future, when the system really cannot meet demands. But there's another problem. As in nature, if an enviroment cannot support the species, they die off. It's horrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but aren't we going to have to face that unpalatable choice sooner or later? Can the West allow a few to starve to prevent far more from starvation when the bubble bursts? It isn't an easy choice, although many will prefer to follow thewir social instincts and try to assist. But then, aren't we guilty of ignoring the future threat because we see a different problem in our own time? Politicians like to say they're building futures for us. They aren't. Maybe loading the dice for another generation, or more likely, lubricating their own careers and prosperity. But of course when this bubble bursts we'll probably all be dead and gone. So why should we care? Quote of the Week The President of the USA has said that the recent UN Global Warming deal is the 'best way to save the planet'. No, it isn't, because the planet isn't in any danger whatsoever. What is threatened is a change to the enviroment we don't like, can't cope with, or spoils our safe little vision of daily routine. Human beings have been extremely lucky since the last glaciation - our global climate has been quite stable for 8000 years. But now it's all going horribly wrong. The reason isn't industry - nature can pollute the enviroment far worse than human efforts - but our growing population. There are too many of us now and that's what is driving the scale of damage our species is doing to its own interests, though I agree a great many other species aren't particularly wel suited to the world we're creating. So now we're doing a deal to control the worst of it. As if. Since when has humanity ever been compleltely succesful at controlling the world around them? Truth is, the climate is going change no matter what these politicians agree to. So deal with it.