caldrail

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.

This strikes me as a little odd. Population did boom under the aegis of the Roman empire - as it would with any empire that provides some modicum of protection and support for its citizens - but surely that was while the empire was active. As conditions change, so does the population. After all, the medieval plagues reduced the population of Europe significantly - in what way does the modern world owe any population boom to the Romans? I just don't see it.

The cull against badgers and foxes has started. Poor things, but Bovine Tuberculosis causes too much expensive bother and our rural mammals have to find out the hard way, mostly because they have inherent communication difficulties in dealing with human beings. A bit like teenagers then. The work undertaken at the Old College site has sprawled out onto the pavement for some time now, meaning that the pavement is temporarily closed. That results in big plastic barriers and metal warning signs, which because I happen to live next to a pedestrian crossing means the signs are left outside my home. Until, that is, Saturday night, when inebriated teenagers collide with signs designed to be visible. Crash bang wallop, and the following morning the signs are laid out across the pavement until the end of the week.. Some idiot teenager decided that my reason for walking through a local park was to find homosexual partners, telling his companion (a male his age, I would point out) that I was better off looking in a certain part of Swindon. Actually I'm better off not looking at all seeing I don't do blokes, but then, I wasn't aware that homosexuals prowled Swindon's green spaces searching for quickie sex or maybe more. Thanks for the warning. Somewhat curious how you came to know that. "Need a bit o' help, mate?" shouted another idiot from a passing van as I approached a pedestrian crossing laden with a weeks shopping Not from a Drivers Mate. Heading for a certain part of Swindon? Have a nice day. And then there's that little pest who mutters threats every night, proclaiming my home is his, and that all my property is his too. No, they aren't. So shut up and go away you silly little boy. Get yourself a hobby, like stamp collecting or acne clearance. Alternatively, for something more adult, I'm reliably informed that exciting activity can be found in a certain part of Swindon. As much as farmers suffer the aggravation of badgers and foxes, we townies have to suffer the aggravations of teenage idiots. As far as I'm concerned the government are better off culling them. Confromtation of the Week "Don't look at me like I am an idiot!" The young man snapped at me. I'd taken too long to reply to his indignation that I'd been insisting on his turning down the volume of his music in the quiet zone of the local library. Although he was using headphones, the sheer volume meant that anyone within a five hundred yard radius could hear those tinny hisses and clicks. When I'm working against the clock in the frantic browse for gainful employment, the high pitched club anthem is distracting to the same degree as a naked blonde librarian telling me to come upstairs and get it big boy. Only more irritating. In fact he'd already called me an idiot in front of a librarian on duty fully clothed, and whilst he pretended to comply with the requests made by the librarian and also by a security guard at my behest, he'd pushed the volume back up again as soon as they'd gone. Mate... Calm down... "I am calm" He replied angrily, quickly switching to a menacing tone "I am always calm. You would not like me when I'm angry." I didn't much like him at all. I have no sympathy for defiant teenagers. However I was struggling not to burst into hysterics with his comic book machismo. I've heard more convincing dialogue in a Steven Seagal film.

Haven't you noticed that when anyone speculates about alternative history, the Roman Empire always makes it to the modern day? Polybius knew it wouldn't. He talks about sociology/politics in one of his books written around 150BC and states that all things come to an end. I agree with him. Nation states are analogies of natural life, or if you see it as I do, extensions of it in that biological entities cooperate to form a bigger entity in the same way our individual cells combine to make us what we are. Personally I think this sort of speculation is rather pointless - it doesn't really investigate history at all and merely provides a rationale for the desired end result, considering the case in isolation of external factors. In any event Rome still survives - many social customs derive from them and the Christian Church is unashamedly Roman sometimes.

That film was more or less a remake of a film starring Christopher Plummer and Alec Guiness. (Can't remember the title - something like 'Fall Of the Roman Empire'), so there was little new about it either (apart from lots of special effects that if I were honest did the job quite well)

As I understand it, the definition on Wikipedia is a bit exaggerated. Lares were not gods/deities per se, but spirits or ghosts, the word 'familiares' suggesting ancestral spirit. The Romans did venerate ancestors - it was common practice in wealthier families to keep a shrine with death masks of former family members - but households might also have a deity to which the household was dedicated. Notice that unlike christianity, there is no clear division between mortal and divine, even in the period before Caesars got a bit above themselves. A man may be mundane by birt - he might accumlate via his deeds, his virtus, status and power that would eventually rival the residents of Olympus (though in reality this usually happened after they were dead and the Senate had deified them as an honour - notice also the right of the Senate to designate a man as a god)

I'm not sure why the concept should suprise anyone. The Romans by habit set up administrative regions in provinces based on tribal focus. That later tribes emerged with the same boundaries would therefore seem perfectly reasonable.

There is a mention somewhere of an expedition southward. They found nothing but desertt and some 'cavemen' with whom they fought.

Roman soldiers experienced fear just the same as any other army. There are accounts of them fleeing or expressing fear. Libianus for instance tells us that "Roman soldiers bear any trial except look a Persian in the face" Caesar recalls how he ranged behind the line in Gaul, forcing men back into formation. One standard bearer was stopped and handed the standard to Caesar before running off. Another threatened Caesar with the sharp end of the pole and ran off with the standard. Plutarch tells us that at one battle, MArius fell asleep under a tree before it began and his somewhat concerned officers were only able to wake him as Roman soldiers were starting to flee the battlefield. There are others if you look for them.

Domitian had cancelled the campaign to conquer Caledonia fearing that a successful general with a victorious army behind him might get ambitious (Agricola realised the danger he was in because of Domitians paranoia). The Romans then set up a border control zone, usually referred to as The Stanegate, which Hadrian then upgraded to his famous wall. Antininus Pius authorised a campaign to extend Roman influence to establish his martial credibility - it was very import fopr a Roman leader to show he was willing to go to war - but the impetus for the campiagn may not have been his alone. However, the establishment of the Antonine Wall was merely to defend and secure the territory wrested from the Picts. It may not have been intended to remain permanent, and inded, a withdrawal to former frontiers was soon ordered. Bear in mind however that the region occupied up to the Antonine Wall was the same region patrolled and secured by Roman forces, with a few forts established in 'wild country' as 'forward Operating BAses' in modern parlance - which means they were based north of the wall to prevent attacks from forming. As far as I'm aware, after tghe Antonine Wall was built, there were no further forts established north of that, thus the Antonine Wall may well have been considered vulnerable or even untenable as a permanent defense.

At the Charity life went on in a sort of organised chaos. You turned up, sat through a prayer meeting, then got told what your duties were for the day. I suppose I was lucky as I often got scheduled to work as a drivers mate on the company van, collecting and delivering secondhand furniture. A relaxing sort of job. Mostly. Okay, the driver was a bit highly stressed, often losing his temper, and of course the drawback to collecting and delivering furniture is that bulky objects are often heavy and don't always coveniently fit through the gaps provided. I had an advantage of course. Unlike many of the unemployed layabouts drafted to work at the Charity, I've long experience of getting musical equipment in and out of gigs, of long days and nights spent in a van, and even some casual multi-drop delivery work. I also had long experience of helping my father move furniture around the house. Not sure why it was ever necessary, but it gave him something to organise and so I got on with it. So it turned out to be something of a busman's holiday. The weather was glorious, we all had a good laugh in the van (except when the driver got annoyed at somebody), and trundled around the local area visiting houses we never knew existed, meeting all sorts of strange new life and new civilisations, going where vans have never been before. Sometimes you stopped by a huge expensive house to pick up donated odds and ends. All smiles and hearty farewells. Sometimes you delivered to the less salubrious hovels in town, places that haven't been cleaned since 1972, that stink of curry powder, urine, or other strange substances. Sometimes you had to take the door off to get the goods inside. Sometimes you had to disassemble the goods to get them through the door. Failure was never an option. It meant going back to base to face a manager who'd received an angry phone cal about wasted money. It's a funny thing. Life. I trained as an engineer, learned to be a musician, studied various categores of academic knowledge, became a private pilot in two countries, and yet despite all of that I still end up moving furniture around. Struggle Of The Week My fight for sanity in the jobsearching business goes on. Firstly there's Mrs Claims Advisor, who has been programmed by some secret organisation to repeat the same conversation over and over. "I don't why you're not getting anywhere. You're jobsearching is a high enough standard..." Think we might have covered this last week. And the week before that. "Why do you think you're not getting anywhere?" And this week too. So I patiently trot out the same reasons why finding gainful employment has so far eluded me. I'm not being dishonest or looking for excuses, but the reason she wants me to admit to is... Ummmh.... Errrr..... Actually I do know what she wants me to say but she's wrong. Completely. All she wants is for me to be exactly the same as every other claimant who comes before her. Variety, or indeed any form of individuality, is a difficult concept for a claims advisor. The other aspect of my fight for truth, justice, and the employable way us the Job Agency. I might have mentioned them earlier. Never in any sphere of human endeavour has a bureaucracy accumulated siuch a mammoth collection of self serving small minded pedantic pen pushers. Take this example. I look for work on an internet website. Usually you just select the vacancy that interests you, click on a few choices, add a little bit of supportive text, or perhaps answer a stuid question or two, then click on 'Apply'. You sit back and wait for the rejection in anything between two minutes and two months. Easy. However some agencies think applicants should be given more opoortunity to waste time and effort in applying for work, so they disable this easy option and get you to make a phone call instead, in which they tell you that they have a vacncy exactly the same as they advertised and could you please come and see them in their office? So why not just suggest that on the website and save me the bother of paying for a phone call? It gets worse. I asked for the name of the person the advert specified as the contact, which in this case turned out not be a person, but the agency itself. Eventually this confusion was ironed out. Who says I don't have communication skills? Then the lady said "All we have is this furniture warehouse vacancy. It will involve some heavy lifting...Is that what you want to do?" You know what? It was my childhood dream to lift heavy objects. I studied heavy weights at school, and got myself an O Level in Applied Lifting followed by a Degree in Industrial Physics. Ten years appprenticeship as a Manual Load Handler, followed by a fifteen year career of shoving and pushing. I also lift weights for a hobby. No. I'm joking. My CV doesn't say that, and neither did I. In fact I could barely resist laughing as I told her that lifting heavy objects wasn't exactly a career of choice but if it pays the bills.... You could hear her disappointment over the phone. Is she serious?

Stone seats must have been cold 'oop north' on t'Roman frontier...