caldrail

There was no actual border in those days, or at least, not a defined line on a map. The frontier between the two areas was indistinct as it was a desert with few geographical features to refer to. In terms of safety, in depended on a great many things. Enviromentally there were risks - deserts are not the easiest place to live in - and the fact there were bandits in those areas suggest there were only bandits in places that supported their lifestyles, so much of the region was in fact free of them, although we can't discount the possibility of travel to or fro from routes and hideouts. This means logicaly that getting unwanted attention from a bandit gang was something of a lottery, depending on where they had decided to focus their activity, and where the caravan was in relation to them. bandits weren't always violent - they might just as easily extort bribes for safe passage, or be in a state of idleness - the whole point of stealing wealth was that they had wealth to spend, which requires that on occaision they went off and spent it. Trade in that area was in fact quite busy, especially since it represented one end of the Silk Road, with wealthy city states in sheltered places that depended on traders for survival. banditry was certainly prevailent, but intermittent, and quite often tolls had been paid and the caravan passed without incident.

I'm niot suprised to hear that Jesus and his followers were more like trouble makers than saintly devotees, but why was jesus crucified and not his men, if violence against the state was an issue? This argument is an old one. The execution of Jesus alone has interesting implications (and tragic ones in later times), not least those connected with Judas.

The Romans often categorised things - sometimes they explained or justified it, sometimes they didn't. The same attitude covered just about every realm of knowledge. Why? To be honest I haven't seen an adequate explanation in print, but I would say that it was a simlification for ease of learning, the Roman obsession with order, and the desire to sound learned and clever.

It's open! It's all open! The supermarket at the Old College site is open for business! Drop everything and rush down there at once before everything goes in the Swindon store's grand opening. Or not. Depending on whether you actually care. It's still a building site of course but at least the public and wander in awe along the aisles admiring the low low prices and bargains galore. The supermarket isn't the only new store opening here recently. There's the toy shop at the old shopping cente too. As it happens that wasn't particularly of any interest to me but imagine my suprise turning a corner when I spotted an imperial storm trooper looking for androids in a Swinbon street. No really, fully dressed in up and carrying one of those short barrelled blasters they couldn't hit a barn door with. It's a wonder he wasn't arrested for carrying an offensive weapon. [My Jedi Training Begins This morning I dragged myself out of bed for that most unusual of job searching activities, the early morning start. For today I'm off to 'Boot Camp', Basic Training for Jobseekers 101, at the local college (the new one, not the mass of bricks, scaffolds, hi-vis vests, and bewildered shoppers at the Old College site). After a decade of intermittent quests for employment the Job Centre have decided I'm a useless klutz who must be re-educated and indoctrinated into the ways of the Force, findings jobs with the blast shield down, stretching out with my feelings, sensing terrible disturbances, although at my age leaping several hundred feet in one go and getting into intense laser sword fights isn't quite so easy. No wonder Ben Kenobi lost his final confrontation with Darth Vader, but then he was long term unemployed too as I seem to remember from the films. Mind you, living in a cave out in the desert wastes of Tatooine, he didn't have a brand new supermarket to find food in. The Job Centre couldn't wait to send me on this two week course, the joke being that it turns out only the first meeting was mandatory. But hey, let's be positive, at least at the end of this I'll be able to prove to employers that I, Old Ben Caldrail, am fully presentable and employable with my new certificate. What? Another one? Oh yes. In two weeks I shall be a Jobseeking Jedi, learned in the ways of employment. The Job Centre will expect nothing less. Jedi Prowess Of The Week There are roadworks along the pavements of the street outside my home. I know this because the local population collide with the plastic barricades in a drunken attempt to stagger from one pub to another each evening. You see, a little bit of Jedi training, and they would sense the presence of obstructions and dark holes in the ground.

Not really. It was more about prevailing strengths and strategies. The idea that a war or even a societal struggle is something that ultimately relied on one factor is usually the stuff of sensationalist tv documentaries. History tends to be more complex in reality, because as much as one factor might be important, there are others in the wings waiting to be, and often factors are ignored because one is more popular in hindsifght.

No, we are not. My arguments may have arrived at similar conclusions to some peoples, but that's niot indicating any formal academic link or influence. No, we are not, or perhaps we should avoid such an ignorant and self-absorbed perspective. Witch Doctors are men using superstition for their own ends to all intents and purposes. As for myself, my religious beliefs are elsewhere and I don't often air them publicly. My academic views are another matter. Wouldn't it be more acccurate to view ourselves as casual students debating issues concerning Roman hisotry on this site?

One of the things I've learned from studying history is that things are never quite what you expected. There's always something you didn't know, always something that overturns your preconceptions, and always someone out there who knows more than you - and that applies to me too as I'm painfully aware. Some of the stuff I used to write on this site is hopelessly naive or just plain wrong. So be it. Life is a learning process.

It ought to be noted that the First Crusade was one instance where the loss of horses was recorded. The trials of the long march through Anatolia reduced the cavalry either to riding donkeys procured locally or to fighting on foot. Not very appealing to a medieval knight, but it was 'gods work', after all. Ahem.

The Roman state made reforms to its legions now and then. Some we know about, such as Augustus, others are more obscure. However, it ought to be noted that despite Augustus's concerns about keeping the military both effective and under control, it was after his death that the legion in Pannonia revolted - and that other legionaries revolted in Germania too (which resulted in a massacre - when Drusus wrote a letter to the Germanian legion commander requiring him to have actually done something before he got there, the commander had all the rebels killed by loyal troops). The problem with the Roman legion is that enthusiasts often give it properties that are modern in scope, ahistorical, or just belonging to some sanuine preconception. The Roman state did not have a national army - there was no such organisation - just a lot of legions, or levies, of armed men assigned to political leadrs to maintain security or prosecute war against Rome's enemies. The control of the state over these men was not therefore primarily patriotic or organisational, as we might expect for forces so 'well organised', but rather loyalty to personality and paycheck, and therefore were a feudal organisation rather than a modern style pyramidical one. In fact, the presupposed organisation of the legion was less formal than many people expect. The apparent formality of it is misleading - as much as we point to numbers and grouping and construct a sort of crystalline image of military efficiency - efficient the legions were not. They were never fully trustworthy and subject to being led astray by ambitious men. The principal glory of the Roman empire and its most secure foundation Discipline - (Valerius Maximus) So by long unfamiliarity with fighting the Roman soldier was reduced to a cowardly condition. For as to all the arts of life, so especially to the business of war, is sloth fatal. It is of the greatest importance for soldiers to experience the ups and downs of fortune, and to take strenuous exercise in the open. The most demoralised of all, however, were the Syrian soldiers, mutinous, disobedient,seldom with their units, straying in front of their prescribed posts, roving about like scouts, tipsy from one noon to the next, unused to carrying even their arms. Letter to Lucius Verus (Fronto) But when he [Germanicus] touched on the mutiny and asked where was their soldierly obedience? where the discipline, once their glory? Whither had they driven their tribunes — their centurions? with one impulse they tore off their tunics and reproachfully exhibited the scars of battle and the imprints of the lash. Then, in one undistinguished uproar, they taunted him with the fees for exemption from duty, the miserly rate of pay, and the severity of the work, — parapet-making, entrenching, and the collection of forage, building material and fuel were specifically mentioned, along with the other camp drudgeries imposed sometimes from necessity, sometimes as a precaution against leisure. Annals Book I Chapter III (Tacitus).

The problem with ROman pagan practises is that it didn't have the Christian idea of commitment. Whereas a christian is pious, observes rituals, engages in social activity, and does the right thing in order that God judges him worthy of assistance, the Romans took the same relationship as their client/patron system. In other words, a pagan Roman goes to the temple or shrine - in essence the atrium of the higher planes - and requests a favour from his chosen god on a personal level, sarificing in order to 'buy' favour by way of a gift. Please note there is evidence that shrines had market stalls next door in many cases where minor offerings could be bought for use in these sessions, for that Roman executive with a busy lifestyle. pagan demands were usually quite childish and selfish, such as wishing a curse upon someone who had slighted them.

The supply of horses was almost always a commercial transaction (or requsition of available stocks) and over hisotry it's generally only the last few hundrd years when the onus for supplying a horse changed from the individual warrior to the organisation he fights for. Rather less than you imagine, I would say. The sources left to us don't often mention how lots of horses were killed - they were valuable assets to either side - and for that matter, however gung ho a knight wasn't so daft to charge ranks of spears head on. Okay, there a few instances where such behaviour is recorded, but it's also true it's recorded in the light of folly and loss. Mostly horses aren;t too happy at piling into masses of men armed with sharp pointy things. Horses aren't robots. Obedient, and trained for battle perhaps, but still basically a skittish herd grazing animal with an inherent instinct of running away from danger. If we're going to be logical, having lots of mares and no stallions to breed with them is not going to produce lots of horses. Basic biology. Obvious, but true.

Not a vaild argument. Hadrian did not regularly inspect the Wall. The retarded stuff you allude to was pretty standard Roman military practice. As to when the Wall became dilapadated I can't say, but it was an active frontier during the course of the Empire subsequent to its construction. There is probably a case for believing that the wall became less well tended toward the end, what with troop withdrawals, financial restriction, and so on, but I don't have any chronological evidence. The Roman system of reward was biased toward certain activity - meaning courage and steadfastness in battle. We should include the benefits of completing a term of service of course. Howeverm, these inducements only encouraged recruitment and results on the field of battle. On the other side of the coin, the rebellion described in detail by Tactius that took place in Pannonia on the death of Augustus is very telling. Troops complain about the high tariffs published for exemption from duty, about the long and extyended duration of service (troops weren't just serving twenty years or so - they were being induced to remain on strength), and the harshness of discipline. This was of course the occaision when a centurion nicknamed "Give Me Another" - referring to the vine staffs he broke on peoples backs - was murdered. Tactius dryly tells us that "There were no new reasons" for the rebellion, indicating that these complaints were fairly commonplace. And for that matter, please note that as soon as the commander - Junius Blaesus - relaxed discipline for a few days, his troops went on a rampage ransacking local villages. Actually I agree with you on this point. There is an element of repetitive work applied to modern units - that's military policy to induce the desired behaviour from their men - but the Romans also turned it to a useful civic function as well. They were very practical about warfare and extremely exploitative in governmnent. Virgil refers to roops singing when the route begins. How long it took for the singing to subside isn't recorded. A recent living history experiemtn with US servicemen in Roman gear showed that route marches were not an easy activity, and that's with well fed and fit modern soldiers. it depends on the mindset and imagination of the individual, as well as their age. Youngsters simply don't consider risk as a rule.

Claudius, a tyrant? Which Claudius are we discussing? If anything, the Julio-Claudian Claudius was much more disposed to showing some humanity toward slaves. He witnessed some abandoned on an island to die of illness and made such abandonment illegal thereafter.

it's not a matter of logic. Stallions are braver, whilst mares are easier to control and more obedient. it's a question of wich aspect you prefer. Typically the west has preferred the former (it's more macho), whilst the east preferred the latter (it's more sensible).

If I remember right, the head of Claudius' statue was recovered in recent times.

Because we and the Romans are both organised socieities at war, you would expect some similarities in behaviour - we're the same species and haven't changed much in two thousamnd years. On the other side of the coin, Rome was two thousand/fifteen hundred years in the past, so our outlook, strategies, and methods are bound to be different in many ways to theirs. I've written long about this dichotomy on this website and others. Whilst it's true that a useful civil construct is better in many ways than a long whitewashed wall, that wasn't the point. Troops were stationed in one area, patrolled the srrounding area, and had a lot of free time on their hands. The Romans knew full well how risky it was to have idle troops (so do we in the modern day - that why barracks are always clean and tidy, tanks painted, daily rituals observed) but for them the risks were more apparent because the modern patriotic loyalty and military affiliation was very unreliable back then, factionalised, subkect to politics, personal ambition, and although the Roman legions are often described as disciplined, that discipline was maintained by strict punishment rather than any engagement of the individual soldiers common sense and fraternalism that we regularly employ in modern times. So the sources, perhaps not unexpectantly, also describe legions as potentially troublesome and prone to undesirable local initiative. The manual work done by legions in civic projects was largely for convenience rather than any military occupation. The local governor wanted a new road to solve problems and please the locals (and the Senate, incidentially), so where to get the labour? Workers cost money - but hey - Aren't we already paying those troops down the road and aren't things peaceful right now? If they're not busy, he's got a road they can help build. So they get the job, and troops jockey for cushy jobs away from the manual work.

Did slavery work well? On the one hand it is remarkably easy for one individual to impose their will upon another, a fact known to psychiatrists and police officers. Slavery was also an accepted part of life in ancient times almost everywhere. On the other hand, slaves weren't always doing their best for their master, though I note that the Romans were insidious and manipulative as much as overbearing. Cicero comlains in his letters about how the slaves he sent as postmen were losing the documents and turning up at the receiving address pleading for assistance. The issue of runaway slaves was always a factor in Roman society. One senator suggested that all slaves should be required to wear some identifying sign or clothing, which was turned down on the grounds that if they did so, slaves would realise how many of them there were. There's no doubt that some slaves had themselves a very unpleasant and sometimes short life. Rural labourers, especially miners and quarriers, were most at risk of serious injury or other work related death. Gladiators tended to be exceptional however. It seems that the very real risks of swordfighting for a career helped create a mood where these slaves were only too keen to please their masters, aided no doubt by the generous rewards for their risks, the possibility of freedom and status, the familia system in the schools, and no shortage of concern from the Roman authorities that another evolt like the obne led by Spartacus was not going to happen again (and it didn't - the Romans had learned their lesson). Some household slaves got treated pretty badly too. One serious downside was that if required to give evidence at a trial, a slave would have to be tortured by law to prevent the slave simply telling the court what his owner had told him too. Then again, slaves were not human beings by legal definition among the Romans. Because they had no fre will, they were judged to be en par with animals. On the other hand enslavement was a potential route to better prosperity if you could ensure your skills were sold to an owner who could use them to his advantage, and some slaves were trusted so much that they were allowed to have a virtual family, run businesses, or even become close associates of their master - and of course, there was always a possibility of manumission for those the owner favoured. Overseers were recruited from among the slaves - this was a feature primarily of the industrial slaves, giving a few a chance to gain some status and power which of course kept them furiously loyal. So did it work well? Sometimes. In some cases, it was a difficult thing that required careful handling.

Whitewashed. No, but the principle was similar. Romans often built walls to impede nomadic travel across their boundaries, not as line of impediment around the entire frontier, but across known travel routes. There are also walls in Africa for this purpose that survive. Two reasons. One - it looks far more impressive than dull weathered stone and soil. Secondly - it's something that requires regular maintenance and gioves another duty for Centurions to inflict on idle troops. There is nothing worse than troops with nothing to do and the Romans were well aware of that. No more so than building roads and acqueducts (most soldiers were nothing more than manual labourers being told to move rocks from point A to point . That was why legionaries were so keen to be listed as immunes and given a cushy jobback at the fort. It seems many of these men conducted stockchecks - surviving records are full of them. Legate - Centurion! Centurion - Legate! Legate - Why is the Wall looking shabby a mile west of Vindolanda? Centurion - Shabby sir? Legate - Yes, centurion, shabby. Put some men on it and get it cleaned up. I want that wall looking like it was made yesterday when my brother comes here for the Saturnalia. Centurion - Yes sir. At once.... Oi! You! Come here you lazy excuse of a legionary! Legionary - Centurion... Centurion - You, Marcus Astrippus, and Gaius Dubius, get doen to the stores, get some whitewash, and clean the wall a mile west of Vindolanda. Legionary - Awww, centurion, Centurion - I've given you an order! Legionary - I was thinking of a contribution to your retirement fund.... Centurion - How much? Legionary - Err... ten sestercii... Centurion - Ten sestercii? Get yourself down to the stroes boy before I have you flogged. I'll be down there later to look it later so you and the other two better have something to show it! And so on. Does that sound familiar? I would guess it was always high in proximty to the Roman military. Bear in mind however that troops were traditionall required to swear not to steal from each other when on campaign. Records from Vindolanda suggest that up to half the legion might be ecused duty or on rest and relaxtion at any given time. This would be when trouble was not expected of course. Soldiers asked permission to visit people or places quite often, so I understand, sometimes involving significant travel.

The run of good weather seems to have come to an end. I know this because it's raining outside, and that's always a reliable clue. The almost complete car park of the Old Cllege site is awash with puddles and dampened blokes in high vis gear, who never seem to be doing anything when you look at them. Funny thing is, walk away for a few minutes and the site gets an mysterious upgrade when you're loking the other way as if by magic. Sex Godesses Of Atlantis Don't worry, this is merely a ploy to achieve better ratings. I'd have to be a magician to find Atlantis. Come to think of it, I'd have to be a magician to find a sex-godess. Or avoid the attention of policemen in the process. Or for that matter, embarrasing questions as to why I'm staring dull eyed at the PC when I should be looking for work. Back To the Search My quest for gainful employment continues. As it happens I'm getting a tad disgruntled with lifes little failures (or even the somewhat more important larger ones), so my replies to Mrs Claims Advisors questions are increasingly peppered with blunt or gruff observances, which in fairness reduce her to laughter. Also I now have organisations competing to send me on courses for over-fifties claimants. The usual sort of thing, help with CV's, help with jobsearching on the internet, help with career planning, and so forth. All the stuff I've been regularly trained up on over the last decade in fact. It seems then that the Department of Work & Pensions thinks I have the memory span of a goldfish college dropout. Oh it's not worth getting angry about. Let's forget it. Oh. Back To The Interview Not impressed with the latest round of interviews in the endless quest for gainful employment. One place was nothing more than franchise for door to door van driving salespersons. I would have to drive to another town to stick up, drive back to find customers from scratch, and in a few months, would have around thirty drivers in the same area all competing for thier custom. Quite how I'd make a living at that I don't know. Nor did the other applicants who were similarly hoodwinked to attend. One phoned their head office to check the small print and ended up telling them to stuff it. The other interview was for a small industry in a quiet corner of my home town. The front door had a secuirty system on it so all I could do was ring the bell and wait for a tinny disembodied voce to answer. The cleaner had to show me where the button was - that's how secure this place was. "Hello?" Oh, hi, I'm Caldrail, here for interview. "Interview? What, here?" Urmm... Yes.... I have an interview in ten minutes. "Ohhh... Right... " And it sort of never got any better than that. They've chosen someone else to do the job since then so obviously I failed the security buzzer test. Mental note - bring a sledgehammer next time. Magic Of The Week Pick a card. Any card. Don't let me see it. Remeber that card. Put the card back into the pack and shuffle the pack. Pick the cards back off the floor. It's okay, the magic will still work. Right then. So this was your card, right? Heh heh heh.... Magic is so easy when you know how.

There's no suprise to thiss. Early Roman representations of Jeus show a cherub-like figure and the normal image we see today of the calm hippy is an invention of the Middle Ages. truth is I doubt anyone knows what he looked like.

The more you become familiar with the history of those conflicts, the easier this task will be. Certainly you need to mention Rome's reverse engineered navy, it's adaption of tactics for marine battles, Hannibals strategies and successes in battles, the muddled strategy, poor battle results, and inherent organisation problems of the Roman forces weighed against their ensuing Fabian strategy and available manpower. People in Rome thought that after Cannae all was lost. They panicked, convinced that Hannibal was within a few days march of ssacking Rome. Why didn't he? Why did he fail to land a final blow in his Italian campign? Elephants, however dramatic, were insiginficant in the long term as only a few made it across the Alps and disappear in the record shortly after. Consider the theatres of war - Spain, Africa, Italy, and elsewhere.

galba became unpopular for various reasons. The public didn't like his economic austerity measures, his execution of troops he distrusted, his careless reward otwards parts of the Empire and not others, plus his inability to honour the pleadge of a donative to the troops. His allies were killed first. Otho, whio promiosed the Praetorians a donative and was miffed at being passed over for a nomination as heir, organised the dowbnnfall of Galba. Tacitus does infer that Galba was not a particularly bold ruler, nor acted when he really ought to have.

The Romans clearly thought of Carthage as their greatest enemy. Florus refers to Cannae as Rome's "fourth and almost fatal wound". However, Carthage was an enemy they defeated, and there wasn't another directly competing with Rome for the same territory. The later barbarians, even when the cooperated in late empire, were not out to destroy Rome. They wanted to grab some of its lands or more usually, its wealth. The war with Goths for instance wasn't even about that - in the first instance it was a result of migratory pressure from the Huns, and in the second, a revolt against the extremely poor treatment meted out to Gothic immigrants by the Romans themselves. Clearly then you need to consider context. It isn't just about who's army was biggest or the number of wars fought - it was also about the causes, motives, and objectives of those hostilities.

From reading literature and listening to an esteemed member of our forum, who is closely connected with researchers in the area. Sadly he doesn't post much around here these days but his lessons are not forgotten. The vast majority of the Roman frontier throughout the empire was no more than a vague idea of what was or wasn't Roman territory. In some cases, a frontier only existed because that was where the Romans chose to enforce it.. Such open lines were regularly patrolled and do note that the Romans concentrated their forces during imperial times for the reaction against incursion, not preventing the incursion itself, allied to diplomatic/intelligence shenanigans designed to forewarn or offset any such ideas among the neighbouring barbarians. Yep. You got it. Only with hoses and foot patrols. Auxillaries were paid allied under Roman control wo would achieve Roman citizenshipby service tothe empire. They were second class troops and used for secondary duties or as in Hadrians Wall security roles. Hadrian insisted on a gate every mile, even when his advisors noted that the escarpment wuld be on one side of them here and there. It was his choice. Remember that whilst the wall had practical value, ir was alsoastatement of his rule, his glory, Roman power, and a means tokeeptroops busy bty way of mundane duties and running repeairs. There is eveidence that the Wall was originally plastered and painted white. So stop stop griping legionary and get on with it.... Tin was available mostly in the south west of England - I don't know of any sources near Hadrians Wall. The original Stanegate line was where the Romans chose to establish a frontier having been stopped from completing the conquest of Caledonia by a paranoid Domitian. The later expansion to the temporary Antonine Wall in the reign of Antinius Pius was for political kudos rather than any military gain and not retained., the Romans falling back to Hadrians Wall and re=-establishing their border control there. Britain ws an oddity in Roman terms and functioned in much the same way as the wild west did to the Americans in th 19th century. Not only was the north Romano-British frontier a potential powderkeg and would remain so beyond the Roman occupation, it was also a strategic reserve, and potentially a stopping off point for further expansion (which we know never happened though it was partialy undertaken in Caledonia and abandoned, and in the case of Hibernia, considered but never started.

Basic control of horses, although in most cases armies tended to prefer either mares (for obedience) or stallions (for spirit). There was a case during the Crusads where the male horses of the knights took a fancy tothe female horses of the turks during a confrontation. Bizarre I know, but it certainly spooked the Turks.