caldrail

Marius was made consul seven times (the last one somewhat controversial). Augustus would later boast of thirteen consulships in his reign. Mommsen might have been right but Roman law had a slightly temporary feel to it - the Romans were always prone to ignoring rulings or conventions when it suited them.

It's the bad old days all over again. Back when I was a youngster the world was biting its nails as Russia and America stared nose to nose with a nuclear arsenal to smack each other with the moment one or the other said something about their mother. Back then it was common practice for the Russians to send reconnaisance aircraft into our airspce here in Britain to see if we were still paying attention, which of course we did, sending jets to intercept the intruders and wave them off while they gave us cheery waves back. It looks as if the same sort of thing is starting again. Putin wants his military back from the brink, reversing the decay caused by the decline of communism and the new economic market. So far they've been flying in international airspace which is allowed, and I see one report that a nuclear warefare exercise has 'probably' taken place in the Atlantic. Oh good. More From The Old College Site Recently I popped into my local chinese takeaway. The lady there is a nonsense 'can't stop talking' type, which would be irritating if it wasn't for her hilarious accent. Worth the visit just to have a conversation, but trust me on this, you'd better be quick with replies. Oh hi "You wan food?" Umm... Let's see... "You wan food? Look at menu." Oh right. Well... "You wan meal for two?" Erm, yeah... "Rice or noodles?" Noodles. "Wait I answer phone... You wan food?... You wan food? Look at menu.... You wan meal for two?.... What you wan with noodles?.... Thirty minutes.... Bye. Okay, now what you wan with noodles?" And so on, until you've finished ordering, she's finished bossing customers about over the telephone, and the cook has retreated back into the kitchen again bruised and beaten. Then she gets quite chatty. "You wan conversation?" Erm... As it happens we did have an interesting chat because that was the same day the supermarket opened at the Old College site. Neither of us had ever shopped in a Morrisons before so we were both curious. It was one of those conversdations where you agree completely with the other non-stop for fifteen minutes. "Here is meal. You go home now." Erm... So what is our new supermarket like? Funnily enough, it felt and looked exactly like every other supermarket in town. There was a strange sense of deja vu as I wandered past the fresh fruit shelves near the entrance, watching all the future cancer patients busy choosing which government warning pack to buy at the cigarette stall, and spied the rows of neatly ordered shelves stuffed full of low low prices and guarantees of money back if you can get it cheaper anywhere else. Actually the prices aren't bad. I've found stuff I can buy cheaper than the usual haunts I'm used to, so I'm happy, only now I have to visit four supermarkets an week instead of three. A bit like complying with my Jobseekers Agreement, only you spend money instead of begging for it. Jobsearch of the Week For some reason the Job Centre have put me on the Families Support Programme. Why, I cannot say, seeing as I don't have a family, but at least the Support Centre is full of attractive young lady assistants so my jobsearching efforts have mysteriously gotten more enthusiastic. Must dash. I have a review session with my advisor and don't want to be late. I am so shallow.

Your reasoning is markedly naive. The mechanics of Roman government hadn't chaged. All that happened was that Rome adopted a practice of sponsoring, allowing, or tolerating a senior administrator instead of the consular positions. The position of Caesar was not absolute ruler in any way, however much some of them seem to behave like one. After all, when Caligula got killed, who was there to replace him? The conspiracy was out to murder the entire family, and the Senate only grudgingly accepted Claudius as Caesar because the Praetorians told them it was going to happen. In any event it doesn't matter. Imperial succession was never formally instituted and would always remain a populist or opportunist career choice for the less restrained. The Romans, as I said, declared that Commodus was the first Caesar to get the job merely because he happened to be the previous Caesar's son. All the rest had to earn the position in some way, be it faction building, assassination, coup, or simply writing out a large promise note. There is very little evidence of any real imperial succession.

I'm not rewriting history at all. That's why ultimately you've had to resort to insults. Augustus became the state advbisor - the Romans say so. Power was officially handed back to the Senate. The Romans say so. Augustus was jeered for not letting senators make decisions. The Romans say so. The Senate continued to ratify and honour Caesars as well as consuls. The Romans say so. SPQR was still part of their commemorative art and literature in the late empire. The Romans inscibed it. In fact, the only difference is that from Augustus onward the Romans had interesting characters to write about, so they concentrated on that. Look at it like this. How many senators can you name? There were hundreds of them at any stage in Roman history and they continued to convene senate meetings after the accepted end of the western empire in 476 when Rome was a barbarian kingdom. The trouble is of course the average senator wasn't trying to get into the spotlight whereas Caesars did. So the record is biased to a considerable degree, and you ought to be able to recognise that. Or can you pinpoinmt the actual ruling or event when the Republic officially ceased to be and the Empire began? The Romans never saw any such change. It's merely a convenience for historians emphasised by the colourful antics of powerful individuals in the Principate.

If the Republic 'fell' as you put it, where is the evidence? Why don't the Romans say so? They had no reason to deny it or invent a different history. Why was there no legal ruling confirming the end of SPQR, which was maintained until the 5th century? Why is there no evidence of the Senate being in dissolution? Why is there mno stories of Senators being arrested en masse for public e3xecution and exile? Why was Augustus so frightened of making himself the sole ruler in Rome? Why did the legions not intervene? Why is there no supporting evisdence for your contention whatsoever? You say that in a republic the public know they're in charge. That;'s a fallacy. They might have a periodic say in who rules them, but in charge? Participating democracies were a greek idea and as far as I know, the only time that such communal rule has ever worked on a larger scale than a village. In fact, the Roman republic was nothing like your modern conception of the republic. The upper classes ruled Rome as a plutocracy, with enough democracy included to prevent a rebellion such as that mentioned by Livy, the one that spawned the Twelve Tablets. In fact, there was no such thing as 'one man, one vote' in ancient Rome. Voting was done on a block principle, so the say of the individual citizen was very limited. All you're doing is perpetuating a popular misconception. The Roman Republic was not dismantled when Augustus came to power, and officially, he gave power back to the Senate (though he did retain his influence by design). It was the Senate that officially decided who was the senior Roman administrator, be it Consul or Caesar, and please note that the lack of constituional reform to establish succession meant that Caesars came to power by all means. Why do you think Nero was declared an enemy of the state by the Senate? Surely if Nero was a monarch, all he had to do was abolish a powerless Senate and be done with it? He couldn't. They were too powerful, part of the Roman social order, and he deliberately (and nastily) sponged them for cash when his regime could not afford the damage caused partially by a great fire, his own efforts to rebuild Rome as Neropolis, not to mention supporting his own grandeur, and look what happened. A Senate that according to you should have no constitutional reason to exist declared him an Enemy of the State. The Romans had done that before to a guy called tarquin Superbus. That was when the Republic was originally founded. Think about it. Are you serious? There is centuries worth of academic study to fall upon as well as histories written by the Romans themselves. I've seen this tactic before - but asserting something is mysterious merely confirms you don't know enough about it.

The Republic did not fall in any way whatsoever - the idea that it did is a popular misconception caused by historical categorisation and emphasis on the antics of certain Caesars. The fallacy that it fell is easily overturned when one takes the trouble to realise that nothing about the Republic actually stopped or was dismantled - all it was was a significant political change, with powerful individuals acting as sponsored advisors, or in some cases, self important tyrants. There was no job description for the role of Caesar, no constitutional means of providing for a succession, and the Caesars themselves were not absolute rulers - even Caligula is known to have asked the Senate for permission to stage games. The poers of a particular Caesar were provided by the Senate, not the job, although whether popularity or lots of soldiers were the cause of this provision is another matter. Remember that not until the reign of Commodus diod the Romans accept that a Caesar had been "born to the purple", or in other words, succeded his father in monarchial succession.

That's it for this week as my college course closes because of half term. This is the first time in thrity years that I've been to College. I have to go back next week to finish off my course and again shortly after to finish it off even more. What course am I studying? Well, it isn't Roman History. It isn't a degree in Dynamic Temporal Physics either., sadly, so I still can't argue with Professor Brian Cox without being put in my place. No, it's Employability Level One, so I'm finally being trained to do all the stuff I've been doing for the last decade. Again. I got that certificate three years ago and no-one noticed so please excuse me if I seem a little underwhelmed by my own scholastic achievement. Great bunch of people to study with too, some I knew before, some I've gotten to know ion the course. All great fun. Especially now it's practically finished, although the fun bit about breathing life into life size plastic dummies has yet to be held. Ladies, I'm sorrow, but playing dead will no longer work. Out On The Streets Swindon's main shopping street is as busy as might be expected this time before the turbo nutter "Oh my God I forgot Aunty Hilda" shopping session as Christmas arrives. However, I have to be honest. part of my Employability course was a team exercise, clearly ripped off from The Apprentice on BBC in an outrageous example of educational plagiarism, to go shopping for interview wear and investigate the best bargains available to us, though thankfully we weren't required to actually purchase anything or the ladies in the team would be still out there, tutting and fussing over small fashion details whilst us blokes lose the will to live. I've got a few more white hairsbut I survived the experience without being fired by Lord Alan Sugar. Meanwhile the Phantom Pavement Scribbler was at work. Don't know who he is, other than he happens to be unemployed like me but not yet sent on an Employability course, who's been writing poetic dissertations on the reality of Life, The Universe, and the Dole Queue on the pavement in coloured chalk. Well it keeps him off the street, doesn't it? Apprentices Of The Week Now that our favourite BBC soap opera is back in its tenth anniversary series with extra contestants for yet more tantrums, petty disasters, and dramatic dismissals, I have to say this is without doubt the worst and least impressive collection of ego's and talentless wannabee's yet collected. So far, on the third week of twelve, each exercise has been won by accident by the least capable team and so the news headlines are now focusing on something more interesting like which Apprentice is bonking another. More tantrums and petty disasters then. Told you it was a soap opera.

I cannot stress this enough - the Republic did not fall. SPQR was still technically a republic as late as Constantines reign (an inscription declares it so). What happened was a change of political balance caused by the rise of those powerful warlords as ambitious individuals. Remember that Rome before Augustus had an empire, and that Rome after Augustus was still a Republic. You might find this useful... http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/17782-republic-and-empire/

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.