caldrail

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with this, nor should yours, given that this is a history forum and not a site for religiois conformance. Gilius has derived a concept from comparing texts which is tenuous and dependent on limited scope, not to mention modern translation and historical censorship. There really isn't any convincing reason to believe his conspiracy theory because it has limited credibility, no historical context, nor does it make sense. If the Flavians invented christiabnity, why? Why didn't they promote it as Constantine did? Why isn't there flavian era christian temples in the Roman world? Why aren't pagans moaning about the change of religious policies? Why isn't there any strife in Roman streets as there was in the late empire? Why isn't there any flavian era grafitti or inscriptions that illustrate the new policy? There just isn't any realistic motivation for believing that the Flavians invented christianity.

Of course there's climate change - it happens al the time - the Earth is a dynamic enviroment ifluenced by all sorts of things. To imagine we're the sole cause of it is actually illustrating how self important mankind can be. The problem is we're now more concious of these changes, because there are more of us to affect with more devices to record the changes. If you look back at older newspapers, say the between the wars, there are any number of reports of floods in America for instance, with great loss of life. Terrible weather is not unique to the modern day - it's just that unless we experience it, we tend not to consider it. The debate here is to what extent humanity is responsible for the changes. I cannot agree it's solely our own work, but with such things as deforestation, there has to be some suspicion that we're changing the balance out of our favour. That won't destroy the world, just lots of lives eventually. After all, experts reckon that all signs of civilisation will be eroded away by nature in two hundred years should mankind cease to be. What's that on a geological scale? Blink and you'll miss it.

Statistics won't prove it either. How many times does this need to be emphasised? Gilius needs an independent source of evidence before his comparison will be taken seriously.

The far bigger problem is that we're living on a world that's changing around us and we don't like it. To say that global warming is merely a phenomenon that kicked in a century ago is blindingly short sighted. Whilst we aren't helping the situation, the link between industrialisation and warming isn't quite as convenient as its pundits like to have us believe. There are some serious discrepancies in pollution and temperatures that conventional warming wisdom doesn't want to answer. The Earth is quite capable of polluting itself far worse than we can - it's done so a few times in the past - but here the problem is that I'm looking at a longer timescale rather than restricting myself to mankinds industrial rise as a cause to blame. I will concede that our own pollution is an issue - that can't be denied - but the major effect or urban society is to create hotspots, not hot planets. I will also concedce that our gross numbers are not helping either, but then, as I said frequently before, that is ultimately self limiting. The bigger the population, the harder it is to find food, amd eventually excess numbers starve until the situation rights itself. We're not exempt from those rules however much science bends them, and that cattastrophe is waiting in the wings. In any case, I don't know what you're worried about The world has been a lot warmer than today more than once. During another interglacial period we had aftrican animals wandering the savannah of the Thames Valley. Within a few thousand years, the arctic mob moved in. In fifty or sixty thousand years the Earth will be poisitioned so that it's orbit and wobble coincide to produce the next glacial period. Britain will quite possibly be bulldozed flat by glaciers once again. Closer to home, let's not forget the Medieval Warm Period. Were we responsible for that? Nope. But we did enjoy its benefits. In any case it doesn't matter. We can't stop climate change. So we either adapt or suffer. That's how the Earth has always worked.

Fabrication using similar texts. As I've already stated, christians predate the Flavian period. We know this because of the work of christian preachers, because Nero burned a few of them out of spite (and to use as a scapegoat), and because archaeology supports early christianity. The Flavians didn't do anything to promte it. As I stated before, why would they? It makes no historical sense to invent a religion at odds with the native pagan beliefs of the Roman world. Considering how stubbornly traditional Romans were, your conceopt, however illustrated, is not proven. Comparison of two texts is not proof. You need corroboration from elsewhere. As I stated before, limiting your sources is not going to help your case. It invites suspicion and leaves out potentially adverse evidence deliberately. Sorry - the "Von Daniken" approach doesn't work with me.

A lot of hot air has been said about global warming. The world is not a static enviroment. Our global climate changes all the time according to sun activity, orbit, planetary wobble, or the plethora of earthly influences especially those of a cataclysmic nature, or simply small variances from time to time. Unfortunately our human time frame is quite short - we only live three score years and ten ob average and our experience is limited to what we perceive either personally or via the media - thus we have a somewhat myopic view of our enviroment. Back in the Jurassic Age, without any hint of industry or other human poisoning, there was ten times as much carbon dioxide in the Earths atmosphere. It was also one of the most extraordinarily rich and impressive eco-systems we've ever had, much more stable than our modern times - we are after al still coming out of the last Ice Age and it is going to get warmer because of that alone, regardless of anything our politicians impose upon us to save the planet. In fact, the planet isn't doomed in any way whatsoever (at least in our frame of reference at least, though the sun will almost certainly destroy Earth in a few billion years due to natural changes) - it's just that humanity has been extraordinarily lucky in having a relatively stable and benign climate to flourish in, and that we're facing change we're not ready for. Hey, that's the name of the game and always has been. Creatures that can't roll with the punches end up in natural history museums. Our success as a species has led to civilisation and complex infrastructure. That's fine when everything carries on happily, but change in the climate renders our complicated networks vulnerable. It is frighteneing - those who have personal experience of extreme weather will no doubt agree that nature isn't so easily conquered as the Romans believed - but the trick is not to sit on the beach demanding the waves turn back, but to find ways of surviving the changes. Aftaer all, historical and paleontological records do imply that warm climates aren't such a bad thing. However, this "end-timer" stuff? There seems to be a little dark spot in our psyche that can get morose and prefers to believe that the "End is nigh" and all you sinners had better repent or else. In modern times this sort of cycle has been apparent since the Great Disappointment of 1844 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment There's nothing new of course. Such prophecies as the Age of Aquarius, the Great Tribulation, the arrival of our alien overlords, or the Final Battle, are part and parcel of religious beliefs dating back a long time. Linked not by some inherent truth (how can you discern the future beyond immediate probability?), but by a need to fit ourselves into some kind of manifest destiny, to conform to a social construct, and to manipulate others. Welcome to the Church of Global Warming everyone. Please be seated. Now hear ye sinners, your confortable lives will soon be at an end! Of course if you pay a few quid on your way out I'll have a word with the Almighty and reserve you a place in Paradise.

That argument could be applied to all sorts of things to no good purpose. "Intelligent Design" for instance, supposedly the proof of God's existence by virtue of our self professed perfection or adaptability, which in the real world ignores the incredible array of blind alleys that evolution has created over the eons - but then, evolution doesn't need God, does it? Arguably, mankind is a blind alley too rather than divine creation or ultimate progression. We agfter all the last of our species still surviving and as we grow more specialised, our success becomes more temporary. And so on. One of humanity's least well documented abilities is to recognise patterns. It's how we can learn to read or spot animal tracks, or for that matter, tell Fred from Freda. Unfortunately it can also be used to construct fallacies. Von Daniken did that back in the seventies, spotting 'parallels' in texts and mating them to monuments and relics in a half baked idea that we're the result of an alien breeding pattern. His evidence however only sounds plausible because opf the narrative style he uses. Typical of such authors, they infer a mystery and supply " answers" that no-one else has spotted since time immemorial. You can list as many parallels as you like. Until you have some sort of corrobatorive evidence of your assertions beyond a comparison of ancient texts (one of which is unfortunately a revised version of a revised version of a translated version of a censored version of a collection of works by different people - which in itself blows your quaint theory out of the water).

Part of the process of buying land in Britain is to pay for a legal search for such things (I'm not sure if it's mandatory, but you're risking a nasty suprise if you don't). The recent "right to roam" legislation does not interfere with this process. Concerning America, we probably get a skewed opinion here in Britain. Almost inevitably when this sort of thing eriupts in a 'fly on the wall' series, there's dramatic music, wobbly cameras, and a loud argument with lots of pushing and a clear victim (never any firearms of course. What's all this nonsense about Americans using weapons? )

A speculative point, unless you can name the source, thus not evidence. You're assuming a common purpose linking varying avenues of literary pursuit. Pure conspiracy theory based on common themes from a particular historical period. I could, on that basis, claim that there's a global conspiracy to rule Syria. Not necessarily, rather that they reflect common perceptions at one period in history.

There's plenty of areas built on former mines, and occaisionally sinkholes break through. Sometimes that occurs because of the mining, or because of natural subterranean erosion, such as happened in the north of England when a locomotive was swallowed up by a sudden hole (it's still down there, though no-one is sure how deep). However, most of these problems occur with earlier mines from the industrial revolution rather than the later and larger collieries, which tended to be opened further from habitation. There are area's in my home town that are built on former quarries, used between Roman and Victorian ages. Land is very expensive in crowded England and there's all sorts of laws attached to owning it, such as responsibility for maintaining public rights of way, however archaic, and to pay tax above a certain sized holding. There's a new shopping mall being built around the corner from where I live, and the developers, an experienced construction/architect company, could not find out who owned the unpaved alleyway running along the north side of the site. Ownership got misfiled and forgotten a long time ago, even though it's a public right of way.

The trouble with the Roman Empire (as Time Team's Helen Geake stressed), is that people casually spot the familiarities of their civilisation with our own and like to draw on these paralels, even to the point of assuming a commanlity between us. What that ignores in the vast differences we have - the strange rituals, the complex politics, the tolerance of violence, class distinctions, slavery, the cut-throat economics, the vivacious nature of urban life and it's hidden dangers of poor health, broken dreams, and dark alleyways with open sewers, the chauvanism and arrogance of the Romans, even the mysteries of an unknown world beyond the frontier. In many ways the Roman world has more in common with third world nations than the modern west. I would have to stress myself that our current military format descends from the use of gunpowder, something the Romans had no inkling of. Whilst I agree that the Romans were an organised people, their organisation only resembles ours in passing and merely because that human psychology hasn't changed much in two millenia, thus by experience they found certain ways of doing things worked better - we've made the same progress by a different path since warfare adapted to firearms, bringing armies out of the middle ages. Note however that the modern world organises it's armies in a much more formal pyramidical manner - we've gone further than the Romans did in organisation, because we have to. They had a more fuedal and primal view of things.

Many many years ago in that Jurassic era I call my childhood, I sometimes made a journey across the countryside to Lydiard Park. Back then West Swindon didn't exist. Just abandoned railway yards, farmland, and overgrown flak emplacements from WW2. I always remember passing through a village on the way where beside the road was a brake of trees that never seemed to grow any leaves, just existing as towering stalks of dark grey, always surrounded by flocks of crows that made the most unholy noise. Of course now the village is absorbed into West Swindon and the unholy noise is made by late night drunkards. The crows have gone. Maybe that's because they had more sense than to stay. After all, crows and ravens are very clever birds. I've seen a video clip of a crow using its puzzle solving abilities. Within seconds it retrieved a little metal basket full of food from an upright plastic cylinder by using a small metal rod with a hook at one end. I have to say, it was a very impressive display of animal intelligence. A few weeks ago I was taking a shortcut through my local park. Normally it's quiet, a useful quality for a remembrance garden, but on this occaision four crows were having a bit of a tiff. They flapped their wings ceaselessly, hopped from branch to branch in some avian parody of martial arts fighters, going at each other hammer and tongs. I can't remember what I said. Something like "Oh shut up" as I remember, and whaddya know? The crows stopped making noises, stopped moving, and the garden returned to its normal peaceful condition. Thank you. So there you have it. Crows and ravens are not only quite intelligent, but very polite too. Don't know where they learned that from. It clearly wasn't the average Swindon youth. Sermon Of The Week I lost my temper. I really did. There I was, minding my own business as I strode homeward, when I encountered those pesky christian preachers. As they often do, one bellowed praise of Jesus and excerpts from his best seller whilst his mate handed out little cards with his phone number on them. Out of the corner of my eye I couldn't help spotting his approach (the card distributor, not Jesus), grinning like a cheshire cat and determined to intercept me. That was when I lost my temper. "How many times do you have to be told NO!" I barked at him. Poor bloke. He backed off ever so quickly. He wasn't in much danger of course - a policeman was but yards away chatting to a member of the public and must of heard me explode. Funnily enough the preacher stopped shouting too.

Unfortunately we don't how the Romans spoke latin on the street - all we've got is the inherited 'Queens English' version from the christian church. Whilst latin is to a newbie a horrible complex language, so is English, so my japanese work colleagues inform me. If you're born to it latin would be a lot easier. As it happens, I hardly know any Latin at all. Praise the Lord for Google Translate.

I do remember being on exercise with a bunch of others. We were jogging through woodland to reach a better position when the guy in front of me vanished. Completely. Somewhat stunned, I called out to him, and I heard a woeful groan from a hidden hollow right before me, which the foliage had covered over. Couldn't help laughing though

Rank is a serious issue where I'm coming from. I get very fed up with people trying to describe the legion in modern terms - there's a lot of difference in the way things were organised and putting toga's on the modern world is not history. No, not a squad - because they were never organised as such. The phrase meant "close friends" and that was a very literal term, as most Roman labels were. As for inherent rank, here we have a problem. There is no record of a rank system for legionaries - none at all - and only Vegetius mentions "men rising through the ranks" which is itself odd, because why would everyone get promoted? What it appears to me is that ordinbary soldiers got status by virtue of service, and were rotated among the centuries with each annual increase, or something similar. Other titles such as Chosen Man, Standard Bearer, Musician, were jobs within the legion that had status - funerary inscriptions record that men served temporarily in these posts in no particular order. Men sometimes found roles within the legion according to their talent and trade - there's one tomb inscription of a man who was employed by the legion as a mule driver besides being a soldier. This is typical of a legionary - there's more accent on time served, role, and trade, and very little hint of actual rank. I do think it's wrong to see the legion as a dry pyramidical military unit in the modern sense - it was more like a military community, a sort of military villa run by an assigned noble with soldiers indtead of slaves, something that would have been very intuitive in Roman culture. Given that each legion was a fundamentally seperate entity, not linked by senior administration (or at least until the late empire anway, but by then they were becoming more medieval in style), we can hardly claim that it was all the same as today. The arrangements for travel varied. If wagons and animals were present, and time permitted, they were used. If they needed to get somewhere quickly, other decisions were made. Men marched without helmets worn on route marches, and there's one mention of weapons being carried in a convenient cart. We know from Plutarch that it was common practice for camp followers to maintain the troops with such activities as preparing food. In fact, Josephus, in his account of the Jewish War, describes a marching legion without animals, and civilian merchants supplied the soldiers at the siege of Masada. No modern labels - you understand? - We're dealing with the Roman Legions, not the US Marines.

What? As an excuse to throw them to the lions? As it happens the Flavian Amphitheatre has statues of classical significance, not christian, and was used to perform pagan rites - ie, the munera, (funeral games). Thankfully we therefore cannot include the Flavian Amphitheatre as evidence of Flavian Christianity.

Stand your ground Maladict. Don't let the barbarians conquer Rome!

Contemporary documents reveal considerable variation in appreciation of abilities of both colonists, tories, amnd indians. Accounts of fighting left in depositions for war pensions reveal that Indians were not as single minded about warfare as whites, and that their cultural mindset meant they could be at war one day, peacefully trading the next, which the whites did not clearly understand. I also draw attention to one incident in which a scout discovered two indians camping in the forest by accident. He decided to attack, shooting one straight off, and getting into a very thrilling melee with the other. Noticeably though there are plenty of somewaht scornful descriptions of indians, emphasising how whites showed courage under fire by standing openly, while the indian skulked behind trees and bushes. Also I note one letter that describes how Indians kidnapped some settlers and made off back to their own camps leaving the pursuers well behind. Prevailing opinion says that it was. Since there were very few roads, and trails themselves often over difficult terrain, moving large numbers of men through virgin woodland was difficult and slow. I don't doubt there were problems attached to travel by rivers (I can think of a few), yet I notice that rivers were routinely used by all concerned. Since river travel was of itself not without issue, that can't be described as laziness. It was simply expedience.No, fastest means of travel was NOT by boat, given the frontier was the river. The cattle trade was a feature of expansion into the wide open mid-west spaces that such herds found more to their liking. It was very restricted in scope until after the AWI. That's why we write books As to convincing historians..... not a Issue..... they will die off in time with their theories. There is of course the tale of one woodsman who was being chased by irate native americans. Finding no other way out of his predicament, and not wishing to receive the usual painful treatment meted out to colonists, he spurred his horse over the edge, and survived, as the fall was broken by the trees below.

Wrong, although it did perform some similar functions. The word means "Close Friends" and nothing else. The Contubernae were not combat units and existed only to create brotherhood and esprit de corps at grass roots level, aspects the Romans thought very important. I guess that it assisted with administration too seeing as contubernae normally billetted together with a spokesman, but I've found no evidence of duties allocated at that level. men were assigned individually or in groups called "vexillations", which were themselves only temporary, or as centuries and upward.

Interestingly however christians were known to be slave owners just as much as pagans, and certainly attended the games acording to their personal tastes in entertainment. Note that not all pagans saw munera as a thrilling day out - Anecdotes draw attention to the goriness of it all, the dreadful behaviour of women in the audience, and the enthrallment of a man turned from a sensible citizen into a helpless crowd member, yelling, gambling, enthralled by other peoples suffering.

You're going to struggle to convince anyone of that. The average marching distances and athletic performances of soldiers has not really changed much over the millenia and tends to encouraged by necessity and limited by load. Modern soldiers carry a great deal of kit and ammo, plus they often have an option for motorised transport. The Romans themselves are often quoted as being subject to harsh demands (they sometimes were) yet we also get suggestions of animals, wagons, and camp followers, which eased their loads and certainly slowed them down. Conditions might make a difference too - we have an account of legionaries wading up their necks in flood water in Germania, making slow and hazardous progress. We know that at times Roman soldiers marched with their weapons carried in wagons, and that some legionaries had developed the art of crossing rivers on shields as flotation devices (there are two instances of that I have come acorss, one in the late empire, the other a tribal speciality) As for American frontiersmen, individually they might have covered ground relatively quickly, but the fastest means of travel was by boat which avoided the impeding forest altogether.

A great deal is sometimes said of Roman logistics but in fact they avoided that necessity like the plague. That was of course part of the origin of the nickname 'Marius's Mules', in that the soldiers themselves carried everything they needed and did so in a manner that made them no better than pack animals. That wasn't entirely true of course because where available each eight man contubernium used a mule to carry the unwieldiest kit like the leather tents. There are mentions in the sources of Roman civilians complaining uselessly that soldiers appropriated their animals whenever they felt like it so the official quota is probably inaccurate and represents what was considered standard procedure, thus in reality legionaries may well have been off-loading their packs whenever they could get away with it. As it happens it isn't clear exactly what they carried anyway. We have two main sources for descriptions of marching order in imperial times. One is from Josephus during the Jewish War, the other from De Re Militaris by Vegetius. Our own modern inclination is to assume these loads were standard. I think this is a gross mistake. Standardisation is not a likely scenario when dealing with legionaries. Whilst a generic appearance was prevalent, we know that legionaries were entitled to buy their own equipment if they could afford it (technically at least they were lease-purchasing weapons and armour from the state anyway with deductions in pay). It follows then that a completely uniform appearance was improbable, and more likely the idea that legionaries were identical comes from our own mass production modern mindset. The important point though is the legions did not want to bother themselves with vulnerable and time consuming logistics. They didn't want dependence on roads or caravans. Therefore men marched to war carrying their own rations, usually a supply of grain they could make meals from. It appears from the sources that the amount of food carried on any march varied. One source mentions that soldiers had seventeen days rations, others more like three. There must have been foraging along the way if extended marches were required. a saw and a basket, a bucket and an axe, together with a leather strap, a sickle and chain, and rations for three days, so that an infantryman is little different from a beast of burden. Josephus This variable load allows us to consider the equipment carried by legionaries. Although Josephus gives us an idea of what he saw in Judaea, there's actually no indication that this was standard at all. Also, although the description is a comparison to beasts of burden, it doesn't tells us the weight was entirely onerous, just that a soldier marched with it. Vegetius however gives us a hint in that he mentions a legionary might be expected to carry a heavy load, indicating that troops marched with with any possible permutation between required or desirable load. To accustom soldiers to carry burdens is also an essential part of discipline. Recruits in particular should be obliged frequently to carry a weight of not less than sixty pounds (exclusive of their arms), and to march with it in the ranks. This is because on difficult expeditions they often find themselves under the necessity of carrying their provisions as well as their arms. Nor will they find this troublesome when inured to it by custom, which makes everything easy. Vegetius This weight estimate is vital information, but for the unwary, a bit misleading. It was standard practice for warriors and athletes of Rome to practice with much weightier objects to build strength and endurance for instance. However Vegetius clearly tells us that troops marched with variable loads and that not all expeditions would be as demanding. Further, sixty roman pounds is much closer to three quarters of the modern measurement. Don't be disappointed by that. Legionaries were carrying substantial loads without ergonomic load bearing webbing in a manner that was not exactly comfortable - a test a few years ago with american servicemen in Roman dress proved that a route march was difficult even for fit, healthy, well-muscled modern human beings on a good diet - but notice that assumed the typical heavier modern estimates of load.

officially no, at least not as a distinct group, but occaisionally a condemned man might have been a christian by coincidence. I have wondered what the situation with gladiators might be. Such fighters were professionals who swore an oath - "He vows to endure to be burned, to be bound, to be beaten, and to be killed by the sword." (Petronius) if they disobeyed, yet the shedding of blood was technically banned for christians, hence volunteering would seem unlikely - but then, desperation was a as much a factor in volunteering as fame and fortune. Of course, if a slave was sold to a lanista who happened to be a christian.... But we have no evidence for this.

Legionaries were nicknamed "Marius's Mules" There are various possible origins for that, one being Josephus, who describes the baggage that soldiers carried themselves and the soldiersas being 'almost beasts of burden'. Also... Setting out on the expedition, he laboured to perfect his army as it went along, practising the men in all kinds of running and in long marches, and compelling them to carry their own baggage and to prepare their own food. Hence, in after times, men who were fond of toil and did whatever was enjoined upon them contentedly and without a murmur, were called Marian mules. Some, however, think that this name had a different origin. Namely, when Scipio was besieging Numantia, he wished to inspect not only the arms andthe horses, but also the mules and the waggons, that every man might have them in readiness and good order. Marius, accordingly, brought out for inspection both a horse that had been most excellently taken care of by him, and a mule that for health, docility, and strength far surpassed all the rest. The commanding officer was naturally well pleased with the beasts of Marius and often spoke about them, so that in time those who wanted to bestow facetious praise on a persevering, patient, laborious man would call him a Marian mule. Life of Marius (Plutarch)

Nero is often associated with the Colosseum but as rightly observed, he had nothing to do with it - that arena was built after he'd gone. Urine Tax was an additional source of income for the Roman state. Established taxes, trade tariffs, booty from the Jewish War, and personal investment paid for the construction of the Flavian Amphitheatre (the correct name for the Colosseum).. Much of it was built with tufa, a soft stone, and concrete. originally the Hypogaeum (the basement level) was empty and intended to be flooded for water based spectaculars. The aqueducts for filling and draining the hypogaeum have been identified. Temporary wooden floors could be erected quickly to stage other forms of entertainment. Hpwever, research has shown that a small section of the wall was not completed with waterproof concrete and I suspect they had problems. In any event, the hypogaeum was converted to use as a holding area and elevators were fitted so props or contestants/animals could appear quickly.