caldrail

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.

If I remember right, the word used was 'troglodyte'.

There was a concentration of forces there that you wouldn't have seen in Europe. Not only was there a risk of tribal aggression from the north, the region south of the wall wasn't entirely peaceful either. However, to say the area was 'the most defended' is a bit misleading. Hadrians Wall was not a military defensive work - it had a gate every mile for crying out loud, and the walkway was barely wide enough to stand on in many places, never mind allowing troops to man the battlements. Indeed, military policy for the border was to respond in strength to incursions after they had occurred rather than stop the barbarians at the wall. The auxillaries manning the posts along the wall were there to delay such incursions, provide security and customs roles, and pass information back to the legionsary forts of potential trouble.

Hadrians Wall was a security zone upgraded with a visible barrier. It functioned in the same way as the Berlin Wall, the West Bank Wall, or the Mexican Frontier, in that it was there to control traffic across the border rather than defend it, and the defenses of the wall are strictkly speaking on both sides - it isn't often recognised that the north of england was very much 'injun territory' even if most of them were 'on the reservation'. [b]1) The Walls may of operated as a delineation of who was "Roman Enough" to be defended[/b] Why would that be necessary? If you're outside the Roman provinces, you would naturally tend to assume that anyone the other side of the frontier would be either a Roman citizen or a Roman inhabitant. This is too abstract a concept. The Romans were normally more practical and direct about such matters. 2) Pure Immigration Control... Partly. However it also provided for security and customs income. 3) Keep a buffer to the north. Yes. It most certainly was, especially if you include the forts with connections to the Wall either side of it. 4) The Walls were the first IT Blach Hole. A strange abstraction to use. Hardly the first Roman white elephant though. 5) Local Noble was drunk, and started building a wall Hadrian ordered the wall to be built to reinforce the Stanegate Zone on the Caledonian frontier, to establish a monument to Roman presence, and to keep the troops busy. 6) The wall funded the military or government. No, it didn't. The upkeep of such constructions and their troops was going to outweigh the income from taxes to a serious degree. 7) A Imperial Apparatus to curtail the likelihood of rival emperors from popping up on the isles. How? By enforcing the furthest boundary from Rome? That's ridiculous. In any case it certainly didn't have that effect. Britain was noted as "being rich in usurpers".

The issue is not easily resolved. Nero had become deeply unpopular with the upper classes for his blatant un-roman behiour, outrageous money making schemes, and grandiose self absorption. As at any time in the latter half of Roman history, any perceived weakness or lack of opularity invites ambitious men to conspire or mount coups, especially since the communication disctances to provincial areas and the availability of standing armies loyal to personality and paypacket rather than patriotism, was all the more dangerous. Nero had been for a long time trying to push the Senate down. It's believed by some that whilst the Great Fire of Rome in 64 was an accident, it was further enflamed by conspiracy in order to destroy the homes of the landed wealthy in Rome, where all the political dealing was done behind closed doors. Very much "An act of God" then . For these reasons it's not beyond speculation that a great many senators were already conspiring to get rid of the Caesars and restore full republican rule - they had almost done so earler after the death of Caligula, but the Praetorians intervened and installed Claudius to safeguard their jobs. People routinely assume that the Republic had finished and Empire begun with Augustus - that's merely a historical convenience and not a condition of political reality. There was a Roman empire during the late Republic, and the Empire still called itself a Republic with most of the institutions still intact to some degree. Caesars were not absolute rulers either - their powers were granted by the Senate, though obviously in some cases the reasons a particular man came to power meant that giving them the power they wanted was a better bet, and then again, in the case of rulers like Nero, some simply ruled as if they were absolutely in charge regardless of the actual situation. So could the Empiure have split in 69? yes, it could have, but note that none of the usurpers stayed in the provinces and set up a breakaway state. They all headed for Rome and fought it out, or perhaps took advantage of a situation. So in reality, sooner or later, someone was going to take control of Rome and its provinces. It really was a case of winner takes all.

There is of course the story of Androcles and the lion.

Christians were never sent to the arena for being christians (although sometimes the excuse was so shabby it invited official scrutiny). Christians were not liked early on due to adverse rumour of activities, and it always another offence that got christians killed. So Nero doesn't burn loads of christians because they didn't worship him (or Roman gods), he burns them because they're blamed for starting and maintaining the Great Fire of 64 (and because they're a convenient scapegoat). A christian won't be executed for his religion, but he might be executed for religious objection to military service. Later on the rivalry between pagan and christian factions sometimes got a little hot, and if the political leader was the opposite faction to you, then you'd have to take care. Remember that a great many accusations of illegal activity in the Roman Empire were malicious. Christians were not therefore slaughtered in large numbers. I'm a little embarrased because I don't actually know where reliable information can be easily obtained, but I hope I've helped.

It is worth pointing out that our perceptions of the worth of a military commander are coloured by cureent expectations. We expect drama, clear sigted management, guile, and results. The Romans tended toward cautious men. partly because they didn't want politically ambitious generals and were well aware of the risk of armies being used by individuals for their own ends, but also because they didn't want rash and foolish decisions by generals leading to yet another military disaster. Caesar was by our standards a great general. By the standards of the Romans, a loose cannon, a careless commander, and fighting for his own ends rather than representing the Senate & People of Rome.

The concept of ancestor worship was partly to maintain family tradition, as well as maintaining a suiperstitious approval and protection of the departed. However, Romans were often, by their nature, expedient and exploitative. The standards of old declined as the amount of cash floating around in society increased. Success and prosperity somewhat eroded these standards in other words. Also we know from the sources that whilst some Romans were very strong on public morality and behaviour, others were not, and indeed, that span of behaviour had always existed in Roman society - it was that rebellious and aggressive aspect of the Romans that had been with them from the start and was esconsed in their myths and legends of their origins. Also there were increasingly families with little ancestory to be proud of. As time went by the older families tended to die out, and it was said that eventually the Senate was manned by men descended from slaves. Augustus, for instance, was chided by Antony for having humble ancestors.

The sad truth is that most christians had no problem with gladiatorial combat. It was entertainment, however gory. It is true however that christianity was rising in popular acceptance at the same time as the arena was getting less formal and much bloodier in the search for public ratings, and less popular for it. There was however a moral minority who took christianity far more seriously than most, and they saw the arena as a venue for bloodshed, or formalised murder if you like. one monk, Telemachus, rushed into the arena to stop the fight, whereupon an frustrated gladiator slew him. Honorius was supposed to have issued a ban on gladiators as a result (such were fights were banned An imperially sanctioned munus at some time in the 330s suggests that yet again, imperial legislation to curb the games proved ineffective, not least when Constantine defied his own law. In 365, Valentinian I (r. 364–375) threatened to fine a judge who sentenced Christians to the arena and in 384 he attempted, like most of his predecessors, to limit the expenses of munera. In 393, Theodosius (r. 379–395) adopted Nicene Christianity as the state church of the Roman Empire and banned pagan festivals. The ludi continued, very gradually shorn of their stubbornly pagan munera. Honorius (r. 395–423) legally ended munera in 399, and again in 404, at least in the Western half of the Empire according to Theodoret, because of the martyrdom of Saint Telemachus by spectators at a munus. Valentinian III (r. 425–455) repeated the ban in 438, perhaps effectively, though venationes continued beyond 536. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator#Decline

My connection with the Roman Empire? There was a small Roman town on the outskirts of the modern conurbation called Durocornovium, which started as a work camp for legionaries building the road NW toward Corinium. When they left, the Britons decided it was a good place to settle, and afterward the Romans returned and administered the ara in their own inimitable manner. There was a thriving pottery industry to th west of the town, shrines based on worship of local water deities (it's believed that an important temple site existed there). Several farmsteads and villa sites are close by along with a substantial mansio. The local Britons retained occupation of the Barbury hillfort, and later, re-occupied Liddington Hill. There are disused and redeveloped quarries in the southwest of the town that were used in Roman times - the rock surfaces are still visible in many places. The main roads in the ara are based on Roman roads, heading toward Venta Belgarum, Corinium, and Calleva Atrebatum. Durocornovium would wither in the late empire whilst its southern neighbour a few miles away, Cunetio, would thrive until the Roman withdrawal. No local amphitheatre is known to exist (although I have heard rumours of one from a dubious source)

Ancestor worship was a low key but important factor of Roman life, with empahsis on the longer lived and more formal families. A shrine containing death masks would be on display for visitors as much as for personal veneration. It wasn't just about worship of course - it was also propaganda.

Really? That's an aodd choice. Valens comes across as a rather better ruler than some. He won victories against the Goths, settled the differences, cobverted them to Arianism, and permitted them to asylum in Thrace when the Huns caused upheavals in gothic territory. He chose the right commander for his legions (but never did solve the issue of court intrigue surrounding that choice, which led to problems and a disastrous big battle). The treatment handed out to gothic immigrants that inspired the rebellion was down to the machniations of the local thracian governors, Lupercinus and Maximus. As for Adrianople, Valens attempted to negotiate another peace settlement but the late and chaotic arrival of Roman forces caused the goths to believe the battle had started. So it did.

There was no clear division of rank at the highest level between civil or military roles. The post of Dictator was pretty much a temporary absolute ruler - it was not specifically military (though in fairness, the crises that persuaded the Senate to offer the role were often military in nature) The behaviour of NCO's vs enlisted men in modern terms is a bit misleading. The Roman command structure was not so pyramidcal and even though posts existed with higher levels of status and authority, these were not always part of a strict career progression, but represented additional honours to put on your CV as much as roles within the legion. Truth is we have little direct evidence of the behaviour of Roman soldiers individually unless they were being exceptionally brave or bad. Writers do suggest that brawlings and beatings were not unusual. If Juvenal is correct - and there's no reason to believe he was making it up - beatings weren't just scuffles and a black eye. The victim really did get worked over. But this sort of fighting, however commonplace, or perhaps even institutional, is not a prescribed sport like Pankration which had rules, although these rules amounted to a couple of sentences and were in practice often ignored anyway. Wrestling as a sport may well have taken place - it would indeed suit the typical Roman character to engage in a physical competition in which one man dominates. However, Pankaration is much more all or nothing. it sometimes resulted in severe injury or death. Given the fraternal nature of the legions and the need to remain physically capable in order to remain a legionary and thus earn its benefits, the risks of disablment might have well persuaded legionaries to watch the slaves grapple aggressively.

There is reason to believe that Africans manned the Wall, but at the same time, the use of language can be misleading sometimes. I recall there was a hullabaloo a while back because someone had spotted something about 'black heathens' from Ireland in a historic source and assumed it meant 'Irish Africans', when it referred instead to their demeanour and behaviour. Further evidence or clarifiaction might be useful here.

Mrs Claims Advisor is getting a bit fed up of me. Now that unemployment has shrunk to its lowest level since 2008, I'm starting to become a cause celebre. She's already done her best to have my title removed and begin her attempt to turn me into an indentikit working class grunt. Do I not think that I should remove "Lord" from my CV? Not really. Boring old Mr Caldrail got maybe two or three views with each iteration. My last CV, as similar to the others as it is possible to get (apart from being labelled "Lord Rail") saw twenty five views last month alone. So I got paid for this fortnight. Money in my pocket? Woo hoo. Once more unto the shops, dear friends, once more... Those who did not shop this day will hold their wallets cheap... You have to admit, Shakespeare had a misquote for every purpose. How about one from The Scottish Play, dangerously close to becoming foreign literature...Who be that Unemployed Man? That question was asked by a policeman who was getting out of his patrol car parked on the other side of the street as I squeezed past an illegally parked car. From his perspective it probably looked like I was trying the doors to an expensive looking Mercedes. "Yeah, get out of here..." He called after me. It's unbelievable. My car gets vandalised regularly, finally stolen, and the Police tell me to investigate it myself. Then this constable starts looking at me like I steal cars from other people! Justice has a very sour taste in my area. I don't know what that crowd of policemen were doing outside the old hotel across the road earlier yesterday morning (I diagnose a possible crime scene), but I hope the long arm of the law reaches in the right direction this time. If they get enough practice, they might realise I'm not guilty of anything else than wearing socially unacceptable military surplus trousers. More From The Scottish Play With the referendum on Scottish Independence happening today, the news is all "Scotland Decides". Maybe the reason Mrs Claims Advisor is hustling me along is because she risks being arrested as an illegal immigrant in a weeks time? One can only hope. But what's this? Gordon Brown coming out of retirement to make a speech arguing about the need for Scotland to stay within the United Kingdom? Not only that, he sounded very passionate and shock horror he actually impressed me. That's a first. A part of me hopes Scotland will fall flat on its face if they vote for independence. Not because I want to see any hardship foisted on the Scottish, but because I don't think I could stand Alex Salmonds smugness if he wins. Not Playing Fair Having avoided arrest I wandered into the park to enjoy some peace and quiet. A pointless exercise after lunch however. The park is almost deserted in the morning but with a balmy afternoon every person unemployed since 2008 find some reason to be there, shouting loudly for no other reason than peace and quiet would leave them no distractions and so they would be forced to endure their own thoughts. Nonetheless the park is large enough to find somewhere to sit down quietly. So I found my quiet corner and sat down. There he is again! Not the policeman, I mean Sid the Squirrel. Every time I sit down on that particular park bench he appears, trotting along the path ungainly, sniffing and scratching at anything that interested him. Squirrels at top speed in the branches are wonderfully graceful. Walking slowly along the ground they somehow resemble an inebriated scotsman. Sid wandered by, minding his own business. Well, unlike some of our local residents, at least he's not stealing cars. There he is again. As I left the park to go about my business the very same policeman pulled out of the side street and coasted past in his patrol car as I waited to cross the road. Well, unlike some of our local residents, at least he's not stealing cars. Sale Of The Century At the Charity they do a roaring trade in bric-a-brac. Where does all this stuff come from? Who on Earth is buying it? I found myself a few times sat outside in the sunshine becoming quite adept at my marketplace banterm pulling in unsuspecting punters and persuading them that they need a little bric-a-brac in their lives. My sales record was beginning to rival the local expert. Some stuff doesn't get sold however. Either it's not in saleable condition, or it was merely rubbish to begin with. One item on the point of being binned was a plastic skull, looking for all the world like an albino martian (Mars Attacks!). It was so cute I couldn't resist saving it from the great recycling centre in the sky. Unfortunately I was called upon to head out on the furniture van to boldly lift where no lifting has been done before, so I had to leave Sid the Skull behind. I asked the lady on the bric-a-brac desk to look after him. So she sold Sid for 60p while I was away. Gasp! Poor old Sid. Sold into slavery when he could have a home where he would have been looked after and exercised regularly in a socially acceptable manner. There's no justice. or Maybe... Or maybe there is. This morning I received a letter from the Department of Work & Pensions admitting the error in my dole payments was theirs and I don't have to pay the money back. Neither am I being hit with a Civic Penalty Charge. Ahh yes... It's these little things that make my life worthwhile.

The Scots have a seperate identity from the English despite being part of the United Kingdom (which ironically ws set up by a scottish king). It's a manifestation of the Roman vs Barbarian inheritance which has coloured european politics since ancient times. I'm not saying the modern scots are barbarians (they're quite a cultured people when they stay off the booze) but they descend from tribes the Romans never conquered. Of course the earlier history of England and Scotland is one of extended conflict, and whilst it may seem strange that this isn't something that's forgotten, these old hostilities can survive in the folk memory for exceedingly long periofds of time. As with any people that have a regional identity, there will be those who want to establish indepenence on the assumption that life will be more suitable for them - the same motives drive hostiltiies in the middle east and africa for instance (it was also part of the issue in the American Civil War - slavery was something used as a moral rationale by Lincoln). Nationalism can be a heady brew thus many Scots might vote in favour despite any sensible argument against it. Personally I think the only reason this has come about is Alex Salmond wants his name in the history books. What ultimately might happen to the Scots is not really what he wants to hear right now.