caldrail

No suprise whatsoever. Despite the increasing predominance of christianity in Roman society paganosm remained an alternative for those seeking something different. This is normal in any society - even in the strictly christian victorian world there were still pagan sects in the background, however serious or silly - and pagan worship on Britain is known to have continued into the eighth century ad (there is a list of penances written down for worship of craven idols and other minor practises), and the persistence of druidism, ostensibly destroyed by the Romans at the Battle of Mona in the first century, is hard to explain unless druids continued into the middle ages, even if increasingly isolated and irrelevant. As it happens, Rome was quite a hotbed of religious experiment, importing syrian and egyptian cults in particular, some of which were persistent.

But the Romans weren't taxed on earnings directly, so that equation is based on false assumption. Therefore the tax burden was weighted toward getting a percentage from those who gathered profit and status. Claiming there was an average tax obligation is just playing with numbers and different results could be easily demonstrated. Also, citizens abroad were subject to some degree of greed at times. For instance, Varus, who had been a governor of Syria before Augustus sent him to tax the barbarians in occupied Germania, had left the province very much the poorer. So although Augustus set tax quotas for provinces, the old idea of 'tax farming' was still in use under a different guise, in this case provincial governors using their status and influence to collect taxes to satisfy their own books whilst a set amount of money was sent to Rome. Obviously some governors would be honest and fair, but lets be straight about this - Rome was an exploitative society and that fondness for greed was never far from their hearts. Indeed, late empire sermons point at the failings of Roman society.

I wouldn't get carried away with tales of Roman efficiency. They were capable of great feats of organisation but their whole society revolved around the concept of exploitation, which included loopholes in regulations or even what they could get away with. Their system of law was almost a collection of temporary regulation anyway, as time after time this or that was outlawed only to be carried on as normal a while later when everyone had forgotten the law existed. Actually I was incorrect anyway - Augustus had made private tax farming a thing of the past, and instead instituted a more stable tax system, with taxes applied to sales and estates, and with fixed quotas on provinces. However, nowhere have I seen any demand for the citizenry of Rome to serve two days labour a year for Augustus. That's a very medieval concept, it doesn't sound Roman, and given the average preference for individual liberty, I find it hard to believe that the citizenry would tolerate that sort of social obligation easily. If I find evidence of this I'll happily eat my words - but right now, I wouldn't accept this point.

There were two kind of fighters who interacted with animals. Firstly, and higher status, was the venator, the animal hunter, who stalked and killed in the arena to celebrate religious rites and demonstrate power over nature. There were also Bestiarii, who not only had to fight animals as equals (thus the lower status), but were also employed to handle them as well. One man was said to have killed a bear by pushing his arm down its throat and suffocating it. Needless to say, this sort of mano-a-mano combat with animals was risky and difficult. 'Doomed criminals' did not generally fight the animals - mostly they were tied to a post and the animal allowed to do whatever. There is one account of a man being attacked by a bear in this fashion, tied to a post on wheels, who was described as no longer being shaped as a man after disfigurement by the bear. There was also an account of a lady of poor repute who was sealed up in a wooden cow, hauled into the arena for a rampant bull to have its way, much to the crowds amusement. Were animals badly treated? Well, yes and no. Firstly the animals were generally imported from distant areas and very expoensive to get hold of. Specialists gathered animals for the arena inlcuding soldiers (there was a legion in Germany that boasted of its bear hunters). The actual death toll of animals en route isn't known but bear in mind that animals were subject to stress and confinement, and there was one case where Augustus was going to show crocodiles to the public but they died before the event. Around Rome there was at least one 'zoo' for holding animals before events. I don't know if the public could wander around - I suspect they could - but provincial towns seem to lack those kind of facilities, and given the distances, provincials would have had much less animals on view than Capua or Rome. The other side to the argument is that the games editor expected animals to perform. Even dangerous carnivores were often frightened witless by the experience of being put into the arena and there's one account of lions retreating back to the gates in fear, whereupon the outraged and embarrased editor had the trainer executed. Some beasts were tasked to perform circus tricks (an elephant was made to walk a tightrope though I don't know if that was a success), others were rated as character fighters in their own right, but most were pretty well doomed. There has been speculation of what happened to the carcasses. current opinion favours meat handouts to the poor though what happened to the bones as you point out remains an interesting anomaly - there were however some large charnel pits around Rome, so some definitely ended up buried. The number of animals slaughtered could be extreme - Trajan was said to have had 11,000 beasts killed during 120 days of games to celebrate the campaign against Dacia (and almost as many men died in fighting too, a handy way of dealing with prisoners of war).

It probably isn't. I certainly haven't heard of this before and it doesn't sound right to me. There were however 'tax farmers' who bidded for the right to collect tax in a set area, who effectively lent money to the Roman state and got their money back (and with some profit I imagine) via tax collection.

Roman towns were more often than not based on native settlements in provincial areas, simply because that was already an established civic centre and thus government was easier. In some cases the town was thorughly redeveloped into the typical planned layout we expect, but in other caes, such as the failed romano-british town Venta Icenum, a mix of Roman and native archeitecture went hand in hand. Such settlemnts are known to have exosted in the occupied areas north of the Rhine prior to the Roman withdrawal after the VArian Disaster in ad9. Having said that, I cannot think of any purely germanic settlement that had developed to any appreciable size, nor was germanic culture condicuve to such civic development before Roman influence inspired them. The German tribes were not very united or conformal in that period - their culture being one of individual voice and pride - and it's hard to see how the Germans were going to expand beyond villages without some form of overall government and infrastructure to encourage larger urban development, especially in a region that Tactius had described as "Fearful forest and stinking swamp".

Is that picture deliberately reversed? If not, and that is actually how it looks, then it serves an additional function of leaving an imprint on wax. The eagle was a standard form of symbol after the Marian Reforms in the Late Republic and as far as I can see, this does not actually represent a particular legion, rather it seems to be a symbol of imperial authority. Who used this is anyone's guess other than they had some authority. Whether it's genuine I cannot answer. As it happens, it does look rather well defined and in good condition for the period in question. I wouldn't part money for this unless you get expert appraisals and good provenance.

Christianity was never united, but there were strong tendencies. Since Theodosius had ruled against Arianisnm and that it had once again become a heresy, it's influence in high places - whatever the beliefs of the individual - was reduced severely if not eliminated. After all, one needed only to point at someones heresy to blacken their name, a common practice in Roman times generally where public image was everything. Nonetheless, it's as well to notice that after Odoacer pushed poor Romulus into retirement at the tender age of 15 and had himself crowned king of Rome, the germanic elite were generally more arian than not. However, subsesequent history does rather show a very strong domination by early catholicism. irish christianity, with it's hard edged austerity, was pushed well back on its heels as the Roman church assumed something of the empires inheritance right under the noses of their social betters.

It's not a question of appearances - he is denigrating Arianism, which had been declared a heresy since the Council of Nicaea (apart from a short period during which the Gothic Revolt took place, in the reign of Valens, known to have been an Arian. Theodosius effectively ended any arian sympathy among the upper classes of Roman society although their churches endured for a lot longer, leaving the Roman world with two seperate religious hierarchies. Please note examples such as the Church of St Agatha of Rome, originally an arian temple and associated with the Goths. The Germanic leaders in the post Roman world were arian whilst their subjects more or less nicene. Such religious competition was not unusual in that era - witness the tussle between Nicene Christianity and Mithraism, both of whom claimed the other was copying them. it is noticeable that the death of Valens, taken by loyal men to refuge in a house and then burned alive surrounded by Goths unaware of his presence, is not unique to any single account and indeed, as far as I can see, is a byword for divine retribution for his arian folly. And in any case, Valens was not responsible for spreading Arianism to the Germans even though he encouraged it - one of his predecessors, Constantius II, was also Arian and had actively sought conversion of the Germanic peoples to his religion, largely successfully. The evangelist Arian, Ulfila, often quoted as the major missionary in the conversion of Goths to Arianism, is a tale supported both by Nicene and Arian literature of the early medieval period, the only difference being that the Catholics claimed was was not an Arian until later in life. I see no real evidence to support your assertion of mistaken religious creed.

Valens army was not destroyed. True, it suffered an enormous casualty rate during the afternoon of prolongued fighting and the subsequent escape in darkness (some caused by fighting each other in confusion) amounting to an estimated two thirds of their number. It is of course questionable how united Valens force was to begin with. Their leadership was squabbling over policy and status, and clearly the shambolic arrival of Roman troops at the battlefield left something to be desired, never mind that the battle itself started as a kneejerk reaction and not by order of Valens, who was busy organising swaps of hostages and negotiations to bring the rebel Goths into line without bloodshed, though it also has to be admitted Valens was being a bit haughty and at one stage refused to speak to the Gothic representatives because they weren't noble enough. It may have been that he wanted to speak to Fritigern personally, who he already knew. The defeat at Adrianople was due, basically, to Roman ineptitude and a gothic tactic of playing for time to ensure their cavalry had returned from a foraging expedition, which was why Roman spies thought the Goths had far less numbers (they weren't all at the camp at the time). The weather was well hot, the Romans had marched for eight miles at midday to get there, and the Goths had added to their discomfort by starting fires where smoke would drift into them. As for Arianism, it's well known that the Goths had adopted Arianism and would remain arians afterward, supporting a rival church. Valens was arian and insisted that the Goths remained so as part of the conditions of their settlement in Thrace. The Goths had converted to arian christianity for some time before the events leading to Adrianople. And since at that time the Emperor Valens, who was infected with the Arian perfidy, had closed all the churches of our party, he sent as preachers to them those who favored his sect. They came and straightway filled a rude and ignorant people with the poison of their heresy. Thus the Emperor Valens made the Visigoths Arians rather than Christians Res gaetica (Jordanes)

The Goths had converted to Arianism previously as part of the peace deal offered by valens in the war that had already taken place. Assimilation? There was never any attempt to assimilate the Goths, even those officially allowed to cross the Danube (a second group of the same order of size saw what was going on and decided to cross the river too, without permission, thus in all fairness, despite the Roman governors attitude toward those requesting assistance they were in fact faced with a far larger refugee crisis than Valens had authorised). What those two villains did was create a situation where the refugees were forced into slavery and so the problem went away with everyone else making a tidy profit out of it. Had the attitude of the Roman province been more benign, these Goths were allowed to settle. That did not require they became somehow 'Roman', only that they obeyed Roman law as well as their own and paid taxes. The only stipulation had already been met - that they converted to Arianism. However, what is clear that Fritigerns people, amnd quite possibly those of his rivals in Roman territory, had every intention of settling peacefully. It must have have been abubndantly clear to them having lost a war already that the Romans would not tolerate bolshiness or rebellion - but that was the path they were eventually forced down. And far from not assimilating, it ought to be remembered that Gotjhic culture was for a while quite fashionable in the Roman world - Gratian had been criticised for wearing a gothic cloak as a fashion statement. The Huns were of course the danger of the time, aggressors whose lightning fast raids were terrifying to those who thought they would be next. Sebastianus' predecessor in command, Trajanus, had already built a wall across the border somewhere to fend off their potential raiding. It was the both the pressure from the Huns, and the internal competition within the Gothic tribes, that had forced them to consider appealing to Valens for help. As for the Sassanids, they would continue to question the arid no-mans land between them and Roman territory. Neither would fully defeat the other. Two different cultures that basically did not get along too well.

People drifted toward the empiure, aggressively, speculatively, or desperately, because of the perception that the empire was wealthy, which is more or less the same as today, albeit that aggression cannot compete with Europes military strength aside from terrorism. The classic example in antiquity was the arrival of the Goths. Fritigern, who had already made a peace treaty with Valens, asked the Roman emperor for permission to cross the Danube and settle in Roman territory. Valens allowed this, but the governors of Thrace, where the refugees were crossing the river, were not best pleased at having to support a migrant ppulation. So Lupicinius and Maximus encouraged the most shameful exploitation of the Goths. When the barbarians who had been conducted across the river were in great distress from want of provisions, those detested generals conceived the idea of a most disgraceful traffic: and having collected hounds from all quarters with the most insatiable rapacity, they exchanged them for an equal number of slaves, among whom were several sons of men of noble birth. Ammianus Marcellinus Soon famine and want came upon them, as often happens to a people not yet well settled in a country. Their princes and the leaders who ruled them in place of kings, that is Fritigern, Alatheus and Safrac, began to lament the plight of their army and begged Lupicinus and Maximus, the Roman commanders, to open a market. But to what will not the "cursed lust for gold" compel men to assent? The generals, swayed by avarice, sold them at a high price not only the flesh of sheep and oxen, but even the carcasses of dogs and unclean animals, so that a slave would be bartered for a loaf of bread or ten pounds of meat. When their goods and chattels failed, the greedy trader demanded their sons in return for the necessities of life. And the parents consented even to this, in order to provide for the safety of their children, arguing that it was better to lose liberty than life; and indeed it is better that one be sold, if he will be mercifully fed, than that he should be kept free only to die. Jordanes Not content with this activity, the two Roman governors perceived there might be trouble ahead and so hatched a plot... Now it came to pass in that troubIous time that Lupicinus, the Roman general, invited Fritigern, a chieftain of the Goths, to a feast and, as the event revealed, devised a plot against him. But Fritigern, thinking no evil, came to the feast with a few followers. While he was dining in the praetorium he heard the dying cries of his ill-fated men, for, by order of the general, the soldiers were slaying his companions who were shut up in another part of the house. The loud cries of the dying fell upon ears already suspicious, and Fritigern at once perceived the treacherous trick. He drew his sword and with great courage dashed quickly from the banqueting-hall, rescued his men from their threatening doom and incited them to slay the Romans. Thus these valiant men gained the chance they had longed for--to be free to die in battle rather than to perish of hunger--and immediately took arms to kill the generals Lupicinus and Maximus. Jordanes And so a refugee crisis became a full blown rebellion against Rome.

I don't think the Romans would have been puzzled at all. The Rioman Empire was never fully united since it depended on political loyalty in the provinces which was often lacking, and we see plenty of occaisions when provincial garrisons turned toward Rome to start a civil war or coup detat. The problem here is that most people see the empire as some sort of monolithic state that effectively assimilated provinces and made them in some way fully Roman. That was not the case. Provinces may have been technically loyal to Rome, adopted many latin features, and paid their taxes, but they were effectively self governing regions whose governor, sent by the Roman government, did not ordinarily interfere in (though several made good use of the posting to squeeze the province for cash). Provinces were hybrid societies, so for instance we do not see British Romans, but Romano-Britons. The latin culture lived alongside its native neighbours throughout the occupation. Migrant populations were nothing unusual in ancient times either. That was why the Romans built walls in various places around the empire, to obstruct the passage of horsemen and extract tolls from entrants.

That some men avoided recruitment is not unusual - that happens in every society, and although the Romans were often militaristic and belligerent, the prosperity and easy lives offered by military success meant that many no longer had the immediate need to sign their lives for twenty five years (and in imperial times, it wasn't unusual to serve longer).. What is noticeable is that risk had little to do with it. When a Roman male of free birth got into financial trouble, he was more likely to cut a deal with a lanista and spend a few dangerous years in the arena than spend quarter of a century, or roughly two thirds of his expected adult life, as a lowly soldier who might never see combat and would ordinarily receive regular pay and benefits. The possibility of getting rich quick was seen as far beter than long term investment. That is probably very romanesque in general. That said, it wasn't just financial. We tend to forget these men had families and occupations to take care of, which in many cases must have seemed more important to them than service for a cause the individual probably had no interest in. Therefore when the gentleman punished by Augustus cut off his sons thumbs so he could not wield a sword, he was trying to ensure his estate would pass on and be taken care of. Incidentially Augustus also asked Tiberius at one point to look into how many men were hiding in rural slave barracks to avoid service. Clearly this was a known problem and fairly widespread enough to reach the top level of government.

Vandalism of cultural heritage is nothing new. The library of Alexandria for instance, and I understand another important library got burned at one point. Or the looters at large in the world today. On one recent television documentary, researchers followed satellite data to an almost unknown border fortification/wall in North Africa. The whole site was pockmarked by speculative digs, including some by JCB machinery.

What strikes me about this sort of thing is how much regional variation in gladiatorial combat there was. The 'official' standards may have been set in Rome or Capua, but archeology in places like Ephesus has shown how classes and matches varied. I understand that in Britain there was a variation for a while where defeated fighters were beheaded. Haven't seen that sort of thing elsewhere, and the archaeologists concerned linked it to possible slaves brought in from the Balkans, which means the behaviour isn't foisted upon fighters but was allowed as part of their ethnic heritage. It's suprising how much of this sort of cosmopolitan accretion occurred - which as I've often argued - means that 'Romanisation' was not as all encompassing as usually assumed.

The reality of archeological remains is that at some point they will vanish forever. Now I agree that deliberate vandalism is not acceptable, but that's the trouble with zealotry - it does not stop to consider alternative values and your reaction is in fact merely going to encourage them, because they act like bullies. Once they realise this vandalism hurts you, they do it all the more. But I agree they shouldn't do it and need to be stop. So if a bomb or two drops on them, I won't shed any tears for their ignorant creed.

They want you to be offended along with everyone else. it's a gesture of rejection of western values and rather like a diluted version of Pol Pots attempt at creating a brave new world, is one of a series of actions aimed at wiping off the old world order and establioshing the dominance of this islamic creed. I do agree, the act was little short of criminal, but then ISIS isn't going to stop doing things like this. The thugs they use as leaders among them aren't interested in cultural values except their own, and will continue to employ force to swagger around feeling powerful. It's a very insidious creed as well. On one occaision last year one moslem youth harangued me in a supermarket carpark to the effect that he, Abdullah, will do this or that and rivers of blood etc etc. That was technically a punishable offence (Threatening behaviour at the very least) but usually this sort of polemic has no tabgible threat. The young man is merely sounding off to boost his ego and social status as young men do, the real risk being that he connects with those minorities who are more manipulative or equipped.

Interesting. My world history class back in the day started with events from 1850 in some detail, taught by an Oxford man who was quite a robust character. My teenage sensibilities couldn't handle it - my Ol level result was 'ungraded', but that was my fault. I like to think I've chosen a more interesting subject and made up for lost time since

There I was, sat at a computer in my local library happily webbing and internetting, when some bloke stolled past, leaned over, and whispered to me as he passed by. "Turn to christianity and all your problems will go away" He said. Well, problems are just part of life, which means his offer has an unintended fatal aspect. The thing is though, what he just offered can be considered at best unsavoury opportunism, or at worst, a form of blackmail. If he can stop my problems, then his morality in not stopping them until he benefits from it - and lets be straight about this - he intends to profit from me - is typical of the greedy Romanesque attitudes that christianity harbours to this day. I had actually decided not to post this issue on my blog after al - my temper having subsided - but since I've been threatened by some anonymous person to take back what I said or else, I've decided 'or else'. I'm not a servant. Not that long ago, a woman I used to know from my school days engaged me in conversation. Or more accurately, a sales pitch. She told me how one of her colleagues astounded doctors with a medical miracle as his ailing heart was mysteriously replaced by a healthy strong one following prayers when his mortal fate seemed imminent. I too could be part of her movement and enjoy the patronage of her favourite supreme being. To be honest, I suspect modern medicine and some obvious dishonesty by her colleagues has more to do with the man's recovery, if indeed he was ever ill. This is an issue that's been part of my life since I was a child. My mother made my conversion more important than any other aspect of my upbringing, and even to the end of her days, tried to get me to adopt her religion. Her methodology was to create situations so that I would learn about life and God. All she succeeded in was rendering me utterly baffled as to why things happened the way they did. And most importantly, she had made this very same offer. That I could be everything I wanted to be - if I signed up. She was however a somewhat misguided woman, however well intended, and don't they say that the Path to Hell is paved with god intentions? The structure of christian belief hides a form of virtual enslavement that I cannot agree to. I am, after all, somewhat Roman in my desire to preserve my free will and self determination despite the best efforts of those who want to pull my strings. Indeed, why would I turn to something I do not believe in? God will not rescue me from my problems because firstly I'm almost certainly too insignificant as an individual compared to the scale of the cosmos, and secondly because he doesn't exist. He's fiction. Invented by a society thousands of years ago to perform a social purpose that I refuse utterly to comply with. The truth is that divine intervention has a rather more mundane and mortal origin. Fate is the sum of all decisions and natural forxes. So my answer to you, Sir, whoever you were, is mind your own business. I'm not interested in your stupid cult, your false god, or your dishonest offer.

Well it seems my speculation is a bit off target. Just shows that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing I guess. Although the Senate is described by John Moorhouse in The Roman Empire Divided as meeting annually and electing Consuls even though Odoacer has declared himself King, retired the young Romulus Augustulus, and received assent from Zeno in the east. However, in The Later Roman Empire Averil Cameron tells us that the Senate lost its political purpose in the third century due to a lack of cohesion (That's my fav word of the month by the way ). Therefore it seems that we cannot ascribe continuity to the Senate for the period that you refer to, so if it didn't really matter who was Caesar in the hectic third century succession, then it was inaction, not action, that provides the continuity. In other words, policies made little difference because no-one was getting anything done.

I find this interesting, partly because I have family connections over there, but also the apparent divide in society. The AWI had a similar divide, with loyalists, rebels, and those not caring roughly accounting for a third each. Is this a reflection of human social dynamics as much as current politics? As I wrote not so long ago, our affection for empire is often expedient. If New Zealand now has the self-confidence to seek a virtual seperation from the colonial past, it would be difficult to stop, since the British are hardly likely to send in troops to restore a regime (and if our new Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has his way, I doubt the Commonwealth would last much longer because it symbolises connections with an imperialist past, much against his sentiments, even though he represents a left wing order that has always sought expansion in world society). India has been going through the same changes. It actively rejects colonial associations yet somehow depends on them for social cohesion. Is New Zealand going the same road?

I have argued the case recently - none to successfully I must admit - that we tend to see 'emperors' in the wrong light. There was no such political office in Rome - it was matter of social status, support, and usually no small degree of machination. Whilst many see the empire as replacing the republic, the Romans do not appear to do so, even though the balance changed from Senate/Voting assemblies to something more like Senate/Military/Caesar & household. Right at the very end it was still SPQR, and the Senate outlived the rule of the Caesars by at least a hundred years or more. I truly believe that the Senate was still in business throughout, albeit with less interest as time goes by, which is why the empire becomes ungovernable by one man later on - the official government had basically taken more and more of a back seat whilst administration became bloated by sinecures and profit making opportunities. For instance, I've seen a version of Suetonius where Caligula is given full and absolute power by the Senate when he becomes the ruling Caesar. Okay... But then, why did he later ask permission of the Senate to hold games? Surely he wouldn't need to? As it happens, this event might be true but look at the context. Caligula, son of war hero Germanicus, is arriving at the SEnate house to be accepted as ruler and the public go wild. There's a huge crush to witness the event and the mob burst into the normally restricted senate house themselves, so I kind of begin to see the pronouncement as something of a publicity stunt rather than a legal transmission of authority. After all, since Caligula had tried to restore the rights of voting assemblies at the expense of the Senate to whom Tiberius had given those powers, why would Caligula do that if he were all-powerful himself? It just doesn't make sense unless the Senate has authority. So your premis, in this context, would make sense, because a civil serice - however inefficien and self-interested - is in operation whilst the Caesar is merely enjoying the status accorded to top dog of Rome. Sure, they could click their fingers and make things happen, but there is always a dangerous balance of power in Rome to which they often fall foul of.

Britain was on the Roman wish list for some time. Julius Caesar had made riads to sever support for the Gauls, and find the silver he had heard of. Augustus had plans to conquer britain but never got around to it. Caligula set up an operation only for his troops to waver on the beaches before embarkation. Claudius would eventually use the very same legions that Caligula had raised for the invasion.. The wars in Spain were quite protracted but there was a great deal of contact between Rome and spanish tribes besides the tips of swords. Logistically for instance the Romans had begun buying their supplies from the tribespeople. At the other end of the scale we events such as Galba's rather dishonest and cruel offer to the Lusitanii. I'm not sure the situation was identical to Britain because Spain would eventually become a somewhat more peaceful area than Britain, but then - in Britain Rome had troublesome neighbours and a rumbuctuous population, "rich in usurpers" as Gildas puts it, and Rome seemed to have taken a similar view of the territory that we see in colonial expanison in the American west.

all republics tend to be corrupted by power? That's a sweeping statement and one I don't agree with. I do concede there is a tendency in people to be corrupt when the opportunity exists but that's about ambitious individuals, not the system of government they work within. It is worth pointing out however that the republican Senate was not all powerful. In order to prevent another rebellion by the plebs it had been forced to introduce voting assemblies which ratified senatorial decisions. Only in the imperial period from Tiberius onward was the Senate able to make decrees.