caldrail

Erm... What? Clearly you're not reading the same history books as the rest of us. The antics of henry 8th were aimed at satisifying a number of monarchial conditions, not least the surety of a male heir, and not even the Pope and the Catholic Church were going to stop him. Quite why that wrecked the British Empire is a bit strange though... It's not until the 1750's that Britain starts accumulating an empire, mostly at the expense of the French. And as for the Americas, didn't you rebel against British rule in our colonies? Canada didn't. The later 1812 war finished off the last British interests in your country with regard to the Oregon Territory. The loss of the colonies wass simply a function of trans-Atlantic distance and poor colonial administration (and arguably, second best military strategy and action), but then, many of the colonists in British held territories were not British nationals anyway. In fact, Henry 8th's seperation of the churches set Britain on a course for independent greatness, which the Isles had to fight hard for, and it was the huge conflicts of the twentieth century that rduced the British Empire in many colnial eyes, espeically after commonwealth troops returned as war veterans with renewed vigour and confidence, not to mention a Great Britain that was econimically knackered. Regarding Roman marriages, this was a somewhat amorphous subject for the Romans despite tradition (parts of which still survive in the modern west today). On the one hand, there were traditional forms to be observed. On the other, a man's prerogative to exercise his virility. The morality of married couples, and thus the rules that enforced it, eroded from the late Republic and christian writers in the later empire sermonised against such immorality, especially compared to the barbarians who were much strictter in cultural expectations by then.

No, the wiki page is inconsistent. It later lists four marriages. He had children by Cleopatra but never married her (they both committed suicide before the ceremony was conducted) Regarding Lupercal... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercal Roman priests were not ordained devotees in the christian sense, but men appointed religious office in the same manner as political roles. I would be careful of using the phrase 'state cults', as this implies a formal relationship that was not the case. The Roman cults were far less formal and not actually controlled by the state, other than by those who achieved offices, as religous worship in Roman times was not the organised communal affair that christianity espoused. True, there were communal festivals (and quite a lot of them) which required organising (hence the need for religious management besides any opportunity for influence), but the relationship of worshippers to deities was the same client/patron system, where worshippers visited the 'atrium' of the god they wished favour from - in actuality the shrine or temple - and attempted to conduct business with the deity remotely via prayer and sacrifice.

That's because your view of a priest is defined by modern christian convention. The role for Romans was less formal , even temporary, but with as much social importance. Also bear in mind the very close connection between religion and warfare which had been the case since Rome's earliest history. For a man with patrician status the roles of military commander or priest were part of his potential responsibilities. Clearly however by giving Antony the post in the College of Augurs, Caesar was looking to appoint a right hand man whilst he continued as Pontifex Maximus. Regarding his marriages, Cicero mentions Antony's first wife, Fadia, the daughter of a freedman. Cicero was very critical, almost abusive, toward Antony and no doubt pounced on this bit of info. Cicero is also the only source for that but in fairness I haven't studied the Phillipics in detail. However, I don't know that it formally removed him from senatorial qualification. Being named a traitor by the Senate in 31BC when the Second Triumivrate collapsed definitely would.

No, there wasn't, although such behaviour risked official censure by armed force.

Makes sense, but I do note a lack of commentary in the sources concerning such civil disorder or any hardships encountered by chritstians beyond rumour. In fact the sources tend to ignore christianity as just another minor cult (but then the Roman historians weren't likely to be at the head of lynch mob either).

Not sure what you mean, because Caear did not have his own cult as such. Caesar had become Pontifex Maximus which made him head of the Roman religion, whilst Antony was given a lesser office to do with interpretuing the will of the gods. Antony had four wives as far as I know, none of whom appear to have disqualified him for senatorial status - indeed, the only woman who would have disqualified him by virtue of assuming monarchial status was Cleopatra. Although she eventually agreed to marriage, they both committed suicide before this was done. Marc Antony was viwed as a potential tyrant after the death of Caesar due his manoeverings, whereas Octavian supported the Senatorial faction, although Octavian was also in trouble over land confiscatiobns.

Wasting away the power of the Senate? I don't think so. It is true that the Senate tends to be seconbdary in the sources after Augustus, but then it would. The Caesars are celebrity rulers and much more newsworthy. The majority of senators were not especially forward and many prefeered a quiet life. Nonetheless, the Senate was holding the reins briefly after CValigula was assassinated. Only the Praetorian Guard imaintained the rule of the Julio-Claudians by threat of violence. Again, the Senate declared Nero an enemy of the state, effectively deposing him. The common themes of Augustus as a ruler are far more aligned toward modern conceptions of office that ignore the peculiarities of the Roman social system. I don't argue for a moment that Augustus was out to rule - his own wife knew him as a control freak - but the balance between official power and social control is not what people normally assume. Cassius Dio is in no doubt. He declares that Augustus was as good as a monarch - but that description does infer thsat he wasn't in actuality, nor could Augustus afford to be. I also agree he wanted a dynasty - that again satisifies Roman sensibilities, since the wealthy elite liked nothing more than 'chips off the old block', but in that he was thwarted. The Romans themselves acknowledged that Augustus riuled as Imperator, or military commander, having assumed ownership of the legions as a whole, and this woul;d remain the primary source of eligibility to rule - it did not come from the state nor the people, but would always remain opportunism and popularity.

There was no formal framework to the Principate. The traditional Roman government still existed, the Senate, which still flexed its muscles, albeit with some circumspection for obvious reasons. What Augustus did was establish rule by domination and military support. He excused this by extending the client/patron social system to place him above all else - which was why he was calling himself 'First Citizen'. This did of course set a sort of acceptable precedent that others followed after him, and notice how impatient the politicians of Rome got with most of the Julio-Claudians. Nothing in Roman law said how a new ruler was to be chosen, or what qualified him. There was nothing in Roman society that actually maintained a Roman Caesar was necessary to run Rome. For those studying Roman history there are plenty of descriptions of 'Roman emperors', or 'Roman monarchs', but this is simply categorisation by the modern world using frames of reference that are ahistorical in regard to Roman society. We livve in a world where we usually read about rulers officially accepted by the state, or the people themselves. In the case of the Roman Caesars, Augustus created a precedent for using the legions as an excuse for political power - and indeed, Cassius Dio says as much.

Some hillforts were abandoned before the Roman occupation. In my area, Liddington Hill had lost its population hundreds of years earlier. Barbury remained occupied throughout but was never bothered by the Romans. The reasons were simple - the people of Barbury caused no trouble and paid whatever taxes were due. The mistake most people make about Romano-Britain is that they assume everyone donned a toga and lived in villas. Not so. As anywhere in the empire, local peoples were left to carry on life as they had before provided they behaved and paid tax on demand. Some cultural fuzziness and cross fertilisation occurred - the wealthy elite preferred to walk the walk and talk the talk as it were, and less important people garnered Roman style goods over time, but note the emphasis in archaeology on 'Romano-Britiain. Both cultures lived alongside each other. That was typical of provinces in most parts of the empire. I don't know anything about the Blundson or Purton sites. The pottery style unique to Duroncornovium is, as far as I know, limited to the local area - it really wasn't popular and there was plenty of competition. Savernake Forest, linked to the town of Cunetio ten or so miles south, was far more popular but again, locally biased, as most pottery industries were. Gallic pots, or 'samian', were more often imported as luxury or desirable goods. You won't find the Durocrnovium style on sale today (I don't even know what it looked like - you would have to ask an archaeologist who knows it)

Forts were not always high up. I agree there was land suitable for such work, but there is no sign of such frtification. The hill seemed more valuable for stone, and we know the Romans quaaried there (the remanant of the quarries can still be traced, albeit enlarged in subsequent periods). The original camp was for the construction of the roads which came down off the Marloborough and Lambourn Downs around Swindon Hill before heading NW toward the site of Corinium. Defense was not the point, and that camp was abandoned when the troops moved on with the construction work. Back in 1840 there was talk of a Roman camp at South Marston, later work suggests a causeway or something similar as the area was a flood plain in ancient times. Although nno actual camp is officially recognised, I have been informed that a ditch with an 'ankle breaker' cut has been unearthed near Durocornovium, but this again is on the lowland, not Swindon Hill or the plateau to the south (which did have local populations and hill forts pre-existing, plus at least one villa complex on the Cunetio road at the brow of the slope. The placement of a mansio dictates the main use of the site early on, though some do note the potential for agricultural use, and clearly the town had a market for local produce, pottery included, however badly it sold. It would seem Durocornovium never made the grade as a protected site in any case, as it was never invested with permanent stone walls in the late empire and allowed to wither. Further, the possiblity of a Roman as evidenced by ditches and embankments (or at least the remains of them) were overliad by the town buildings, thus any fortification was temporary and the area considered secure. There is no evidence of local strife in the Roman occupation, and local hill forts were not apparently bothered by the Roman presence at any stage, aside from Liddington Hill which was re-occupied in the late empire have been abandoned before the Romans arrived.

The Romans believed in a free economy. They exercised little controlover it and even when laws were passed to doso, they generally failed. What you will find are a few mentions of deals (the literate were often higher clas and thus not supposed todo business), and a whole heap of endless stiocktakes. There is evidence of contracts, both in archaeological form and mentions in sources when such things went awry, but this was not evidence of a planned economy. Rulers achieved power by opportunism and support, be it military, political, or regional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durocornovium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wessex_Downs http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/maps/interactivemap/ Not at all. Firstly no significant remains were revealed during thehighway development, secondly, the water temple would be on dry land as much as any other. It is true that the ancient Britons have a reverence for water and would iften deposit objects in it as a scrifice, a practice known to have continued in Roman times as the occupiers respected and amalgamated local deities, but the attraction of the Durocornovium site has an ephemeral beginning. Hill forts existed along the Ridgeway to the south, Barbury being the nearest, with another at Purton (a local village), and also at Blunsdon (north Swindon) on the side of the plateau. Some suspect another fort existed where Swindon Old Town is, the old market town on the hill, but early maps show no evidence. There were alsoolder religious sites there - a stone circle used toexist on what is now the edge of Broome Manor golf course. The development of Durocornovium is discussed in the Wikipedia article. There has always been a grey area of interpretation where Roman finds are concerned, inspiring claims of very distant colonisation, but at best this was trade missions occupied intermittently, areas of refugee population, or simply trade goods passed on.

Stone Age peoples used various means to dispose of their dead too. Many of the barrows found in Wiltshire contain jjumbled bones that are laid at random, with obvious signs of defleshing. The issue is not cannabalism (though that cannot be ruled out, as this was before the neolithic farming prosperity and cremations), but rather a means of speeding up the interment process without having to put up with rotting corpses.

What kind of temple? Swindon is a known area of springwater (most have gone dry since the Victorian era), and shrines to water deitieis are found locally. Given the lack of any overtly religious building found so far, and the proximity of springwater, the distribution of shrines which radiate out from the old Roman town, the archaeologist concerned is supporting the idea that a temple to a water god has gone undetected, but as I say, bases of columns for a large building were noted before the bridge was erected, but never investigated. In Britain any potential find on a construction site has to be evaluated and if necessary, archaeologists can register a request for work to be halted until a dig has been performed (a lost medieval village was found nearby in that manner recently). Such powers are limited of course, but construction companies are often keen for the publicity and willing to comply. However, in the case of the bridge concerned, the highway is a major route around the town (following the course of a Roman road no less), and is a substantial reinforced concrete structure that renders the potential site unavailable. Since the remains were not seen to be significant a the time, and situated away from the Roman town centre, no-one thought anything of it. There is one fly in the ointment - that side of the road was a known Roman cemetary (parts of Swindon overlay it), thus the proximity of a large temple and a graveyard are unusual, or at least as far as I know.

It might come as a suprise but the Romans were not especially concerned with economic productivity, merely profit. After all, Domitian had ordered that half the grape vines in Italy should be destroyed because he thought people were drinking too much (though I accept the command was not fully carried out). The sort of economic control you infer was not part of Roman methodology, who basically left it to market forces and native labour, taxing the wealth as part of their social system. Varus for instance known for stripping Syria of wealth, and that meant his concern for the local economy could not have impeded him for a moment. Wealth was the marker of social status in Roman society. Since wealth in the hands of natives, who were not necesarily latinised if under Roman jurisdiction, could be used to fund unrest in an area of known instability, perhaps the governor was trying to forestall local influence?

There was no similarity between English and American civil wars. Quite why you think the Book of Revelations has anything to do with either conflict is beyond me. Perhaps a little less metaphysics and more history might help your argument.

Erm... If there's only one tree of that species, how did it fertilise another? There's some seriously dodgy sex going on here...

Possibly. However, since the Romans had occupied Judaea and fought a war there (Nero had sent Vespasian to settle the 'Great Revolt', the one leading to the destruction of Jerusalem and the siege of Masada) , the Book of Revelations takes on the character of a political rant, rather like the pseudo-religious threats and propaganda that islamic militants spread on the internet today. (I seriously do not believe that the Book of Revelations has any modern day context or prophetic value whatsoever). However, the issue of Nero coming again? The sins of both Nero and Domitian were distant, not affecting Judaea directly, however much rumour had disturbed judaean sentinent. Further, the issue of who ruled Rome would have been well known to the Judaeans. Images of the current Caesar would have been seen, both in monumental form, sporadically, or at the head of legionary gatherings, never mind official notices. The imperial cult, particularly for a caesar that demanded the status of a god and to be addressed as such, must have been clearer to them than your point suggests. After all, aside from the lives of the wealthy and well-connected, native life in Judaea predominated under Roman aegis, and indeed, a later war in the reign of Hadrian was ignited because Hadrian had reneged on his promise to rebuild Jerusalem, choosing to create a new Roman city on the same site.

There's a great deal that doesn't get excavated. Now that magnetic, sonar, and satellite mapping is available, more of it is charted rather than dug. There's a Romano-British twon where I live. Although six or seven digs have taken place, many of the significant buildings (it's all buried - there's nothing to see there) have been left untouched including a substantial mansio. There aremany sites in north Africa that remain untouched, or at least, by archaeologists. Far to many there have already been looted, some stripped away by JCB's. Berenice, one of the most profitable sea ports of the ROman empire on the Red Sea coast, has hardly been touched as far as I know. Again, it's only in recent years that Germano-Roman towns across the Rhine have been found and investigated. Plenty left to find it would seem. Incidentially, a local archaeologist has long held the belief that a major Roman temple ought to sited in my area. So far that hasn't come to light, though indications are that developers have already built a concrete highway bridge over it without knowing it was there.

Portents were important in the story of Domitian. Nerva was due to be killed but Domitian decided to forestall that on the basis of a prophetic interpretation. It seems our Domitian was a very superstitous man among a superstitious people. As for sixth sense in the ancient world, it might merely be an attempt to rouse local support for a known assassination attempt, or even a coincidence. Or simply never actually happened.

It was recorded that on September 18th, in the year 96, a man named Apollonius of Tyana stood upon a rock at Ephesus and praised 'Stephanus' for bloody violence. His curious audience did not know that at the same time, a freedman named Stephanus would burst into the bedchamber of the Caesar Domitian to stab him. Parthenius, Sigerus, and Entellus, seniormadministrators of one sort or another, rushed in and finished the job of murdering the ruler of the Roman world, apparently making sure that Stephanus would die as well. Domitian could not defend himself against this suprise attack. His sword, habitually kept under his pillow, had been disabled by removing the blade. Nerva moved quickly to replace the dead man, having himself declared Caesar as predicted by astrologers the same day, fully aware that Domitian was to be murdered.He had reason to ensure the act was committed for Domitian had already marked him down for death, not only because of an obscure prophecy, but also possibly because a young Domitian had been debauched by the older Nerva. The plot was already known because a list of those to be executed had been stolen by one of his 'naked whispering boys' , subsequently found by his divorced wife, terrified of her husbands hatred after the actor Paris was killed in the street because of her, and she had narrowly avoided being put to death for adultery. Many men were approached with a view to dispatching their emperor, but most refused for fear it was a test of loyalty. By all accounts, Domitian was a very dangerous character. He was suspicious of flattery and intolerant of those who did not offer praise. He hated the successful and blamed those who failed. We read how he deliberately played on peoples fears or enjoyed creating a false sense of security, pretending to like those he despised. He would, reputedly, turn on those who helped him. Domitian was the first Caesar to overtly demand the status of God. Domitian exceeded all his predecessors in cruelty, luxury, and avarice... Nea Historia (Zosimus) For nearly two millenia Roman emperors have been portrayed as the worst examples of human excess. Yet this popular image rests on the shoulders of merely two of them. Whether it's the madness of Caligula, or the decadence of Nero, we acknowledge their sins, admire their unlimited extravagance, or raise our eyebrows at their antics. Domitian was described in the same tone, but remains a shadowey figure in Roman history who does not attract the same attention to the modern audience. He certainly fits the popular image of a Roman emperor. Clearly however there is a common theme here, a facet of Roman mindset that survives in these descriptions. For all their positive acts and behaviour, those Caesars who find themselves rejected by senior Roman opinion attract the same sort of vilification in the sources. Some historians have pointed at mentions in the sources of his diligence in administration, debating whether Domitian has been miscast. He was equally free from any suspicion of love of gain or of avarice, both in private life and for some time after becoming emperor; on the contrary, he often gave strong proofs not merely of integrity, but even of liberality.... Life of Domitian (Suetonius) Tacitus had no illusions about him, for Agricola, a relative of his, had been recalled to Rome when his campaign to conquer Caledonia was on the point of success. Asked whether he wanted a triumph, Agricola had wisely refused, aware that Domitian was preparing an excuse to rid himself of a potential rival. Domitian may have raised the troops pay to four hundred sesterces a year, an increase of a third, but he had also reduced the number of legions and knew his frontiers were insecure. He was also aware that a victorious general commanded more loyalty from his men than a distant Caesar who was remarked upon for his lack of personal attention to Rome's military activities. ... But he did not continue this course of mercy or integrity, although he turned to cruelty somewhat more speedily than to avarice. Life of Domitian (Suetonius) Domitian was not only bold and quick to anger but also treacherous and secretive; and so, deriving from these two characteristics impulsiveness on the one hand and craftiness on the other, he would often attack people with the sudden violence of a thunderbolt and again would often injure them as the result of careful deliberation. Roman History Book 67 (Cassius Dio) Domitian was clearly attracted to the spectacular. He was noted for giving frequent games, including a naval contest in the Amphitheatre, more sea battles staged in an artifical lake, mock battles in the Circus Maximus, adding two new chariot teams to plentiful race meetings and even reducing the number of laps so a hundred races could be staged in one day. Notably, he features contests involving women. Various writers mention women fighting dwarves, women fighting each other, or against lions in hunts staged within the arena. This was not a new innovation - Nero had done similarly - but Domitian seemed especially keen to see such things. His own gladiators entered the arena to pomp and ceremony. He pleased the fans of the gladiators Myrinus and Triumphus by summoning both to fight each other. Costs were rising. A ruler cannot pay huge sums of money for public entertainment, impressive building projects, extravagant living, and military budgets without finding the cash to do it. Whilst Domitian was not as ruthless as Nero had been in raising money, Domitian too followed that precedent and quickly turned Rome's elite against him as the list of dead patricians began to rise, many executed for the most trivial reasons. Perhaps this is partly the history written by the survivors, as some believe, but the pattern is familiar. Rumours of conspiracies and plots began to circulate. A rebellion in the provinces was put down. Tyrants do face the prospect of inevitable escalation - Domitian was no exception and his behaviour condemns him. Was he the cruellest of all Caesars? The evidence cannot be ignored. As a consequence of his cruelty the emperor was suspicious of all mankind, and from now on ceased to repose hopes of safety in either the freedmen or yet the prefects, whom he usually caused to be brought to trial during their very term of office. Roman History Book 67 (Cassius Dio) When news of Domitian's death reached the public, they seemed oddly indifferent. The legions wanted Domitian deified officially but no-one spoke for them. The Senate wanted him damned, his images removed, and of course they got their way. As for the conspirators who had rushed into the bedchamber that day, they were never brought to justice. Domitian's wife however was deemed innocent. The Senate asked what boon she wanted for her loss, and all she desired was the body parts of her dead husband. It was said she had the parts sewn together and used to model a brass memorial that remained in public view from that day. Was he the cruellest of all Caesars? Perhaps, but for all his civic beautification, frontier wars, public entertainment, and capable administration, Domitian is nonethless a strangely diminished personality in th history of the Roman Empire.

Romania is a name that certainly shows Roman influence, as does the ltin based native language spoken today. However, the Romans are adamant - it's Gaul that was the closest emulator of latin culture. Most places only had Roman amentieis, public buildings, and a section of the populace that went latin in order to further their interests. Crowning Octavian as king of Rome would have been a death sentence, however much of a king he actually was. In the provinces, there was less concern. Running provincial Egypt was not the same as running the city that ran the empire.

Egpyt never properly integrated? Egypt was a personal preserve of Augustus and a major supplier of 'corn' to the city of Rome. Since there were never any serious problems with natives in Egypt, one wonders why it was considerred not properly intergrated. As for the priesthood, since egyptian religions were still current (and one or two quite popular in Rome, Isis for a long time, it makes sense that casting Augustus in the light of Pharoah was going to happen. To assume that Egypt became an identikit part of Roman culture is sheer nonsense - no province of the ROman empire ever did that. Gaul was considered the closest emulatior, but all provinces retained their own flavour and native populatiions even to the very end.

The problem with the BBC as is popularly known in Britain is that it's irredeemabl;y politically correct. It doesn't like car driving, doesn't like Clarkson, and doesn't like the public deciding for itself what is responsible television viewing, or at least in general. As to the specifics of the 'fracas' I can't say - I wasn't there - but one gets the impression that certain people were tired of Clarkson and only to glad to remove him one way or another. The Beeb say Top Gear will be back in a revised format in 2016. It won't be any better than the other Top Gear programs shown in America, Australia, Germany, or where-ever, and might even prove to be somewhat worse. We shall see. At any rate I'm not interested in a program discussing car safety, green issues, lorries that can save the whale, or fun packed city electric mobility buggies that drive available in pink and other inducements toward liberal social groups. But then I'm the same generation as Clarkson and to be honest, I do share many of his sensibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Arabia