caldrail

Citizenship couldn't be bought directly, and given his location, obtaining citizenship by joining the legions was a difficult oproposition (that was common practice in the east where recruitment was harder). However, you're right in that if the father agrees to the marriage, for whatever reason, then political pressiure, a word in someones ear, or a big fat bribe could secure Frank his citizenship. The most important thing in that event is that everyone would know full well that the official reason for his promotion was a private deal, partially acceptable as a process of adopting Roman culture, but also potentially a matter of scorn from those who earned their rights a harder way.

What's with the columns? I don't know of any Roman arena that obstructed the view of the combatants like that. If they existed, then there was a practical purpoise, such as hanging nets to keep animals from getting into the crowd (which I seem to remember did happen in at least one case). Also your arena is rather large (most were quite modest in size) and there's no awning to keep the sun off the audience (who I notice aren'rt present in that practise session ).

I like a bit of Time Team, and I've lerned a thing or two from him indirectly. A great shame.

Another day, another jobsearch. My claims advisor doesn't like me doing anything other than seeking gainful employment and is trying to force me to waste more of my time looking for jobs I applied for last week, but you see, all work and no play makes Caldrail a dull applicant. So my claims adviosor can... well... off. As I write this I'm entertained by the efforts of a young man to woo the pretty young blonde sat next to him. He started quite well - she liked the attention - but he hasn't gone in for the coup de date and she's starting to lose interest. Ahh - he's realised the attempt is flagging, and is now deflecting her attention by helping her with a problem on the PC. Good move actually - he's drawn closer to her. Oh no, he's run out of technical details he can get away with, and backs off having achieved nothing. She's replying in shorter and quieter sentences - disaster. Well young man, you tried. Both have stopped talking and all he does now is glance at her occaisionally. I feel like interrupting and teling her that the guy next to her wants a date. A part of me thinks I should ask her for myself and to heck with him, but of course she's a lot younger and probably wouldn't dream of dating her granddad. Mind you, I would probably tire of her mobile phone activity and empty conversation quite quickly, so the only real option I would have would be to bankrupt myself with a child. At least the first twenty minutes is fun even if dealing with messy breakups and conversations with authorities isn't. Ohhh... Hang on... She hasn't lost interest completely. Funnily enough, he has, because it turns out her conversation is horribly monotone and nasal. The thought of discussing which side of the bed to use puts me off as well. Oh well, back to the job website. There's a job for a customer service advisor going somewhere. No. Me neither. Back On The Site Lately I've been watching developments on the old college site. The local cat has been prowling around, slowly, sniffing at almost every lump of gravel, almost as if it's exploring the new enviroment. The fox I saw the other night doesn't care about new sights and smells, it wants dinner, and trots here and there looking for likely spots to nab a furry rodent or two. It spots me at the window - I wonder if that's the same fox that prowled around my home last year? - but after an appraisal decides I serve no useful purpose, and continues his search for lunch, zigzagging over the angular gravel terrain. Back on the Farm The rat has been sighted. twice in my bedroom - which was an alarming sight to say the least - and it left a calling card on the floor of the kitchen a few nights ago. So far I haven't figured out where the little monster is getting in but mark my words rodent - you future is grim.

The reason it's difficult is that in the ancient world there is no real time communication sophisticated enough to coordinate such action. On the one hand, as many people as possible need to understand what they need to do before hand, on the other, the more people you tell, the more likely the enemy will get to know. In my limited experience of film making making sure everyone understands what's required isn't easy at all, as many will interpret what you say in a different way, or respond differently under pressure, and in any case, a plan always assumes the enemy will do something you expect.

Or becoming a slave voluntarily It was possible, if you had the right character and conduct, that your owner might make you a freedman. That would only make you a partial citizen (your children would be full citizens) and although you could not hold public office because of the taint of slavery, there was nothing to prevent yu from reaching senatorial rank, wealth, and success - though I suspect few actually did.

How things are changing outside my window. For some time now the Old College site has been no more than a mountainous lanscape of crushed college, but now that work is ubnder way to develop the site (at last), the hillside is being cut into and levelled. It's extraordinary how much gravel and dirt has been removed. Even more extraordinary are the metal bolsters that are used to shore up the alleyway at the back of the site. They must be something like fifty feet in length or more and each is being driven into the ground until the top disappears. All in all a fascinating sight. Trouble At Mill Somewhat less impressive is my claims advisor at the job centre. He clearly has no intention of taking any notice of what I tell him, and indeed, delights in rubbishing everything I say. This has happened before and is a precursor to having my payments stopped. There's a sense of injustice about this, not just because the advisor is known to me as a dishonest person, but because I exceed the requirements of my jobseekers contract by a factor of three or four. More Trouble At Mill Some of the youths in my area are getting a bit above themselves. In the hours of darkness they've taken to claiming property as their own and announcing their ownership at the top of their voices. Sometimes they taunt and threaten quite brazenly. Someone in my street is being told to leave their house or face the consequences. And the Police? You may well ask.

I would have thought the biggest problem was social convention. A woman under Roman law was more or less the property of a father, guardian, or husband, that they could not officially run their own affairs, although I agree that Roman women weren't as restricted as that might imply, and that legal loopholes existed that women did at times exploit. However, appearances are very, very important to the Romans. A senatorial daughter marrying some foreigner had better choose a worthy partner. So your Frank had better be noble indeed, and further, have some career that the senatorial family will approve of. However - if the daughter was willful, there were precedents for such wayward women to drop their status and follow their heart.

There very differing degrees of citizenship... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

The Romans only persecuted christians intermittently and then only to thopse unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Such events were either examples of intolerance or expedience, but I do note that Natlie Haynes appears to regard christianity as essentially 'good', an assumption christianity likes (it doesn't like drawing attention to the blacker side of their adherents behaviour, such as we sometimes see in the media today, and why assume christians were any better in the past?). To say that Rome 'clashed' with christianity is also a strange thing to say - there wasn't an organised christian movement to mount hostilities of any kind against Rome - although in fairness early christianity had its own share of religious extremists among them - some things never change. The persecution of Nero was to 'punish' the not-liked-very-much-and-very-secretive christians for the Fire of Rome in 64. There is some debate over this. Traditionally Nero simply used them as scapegoats. However, modern research has suggested zealots among christianity had a hand in it, although in fairness the event was complex and political sehahigans were the order of the day. In other pogroms, it was distaste for a sect that apparently drank blood, human flesh, and sacrificed babies, or perhaps that christian sects were getting too influential. The idea that christian sects wouldn't flourish under persecution isn't necessarily the case. The acts of Nero made a lot people feel sorry for christians and thus lessened their 'dark' image. Further, the social worship of christianity was as popular as the same for Mithras, both religions benefitting from seeking a more confortable communal form of service than the relatiively unfulfilling personal worship of graeco-roman paganism. Syrian religions were not on the whole especially successful and those that were appealed to slaves more than citizens, thus assuming a negative image in that respect, but I can't comment about the popularity of Isis because I know almost nothing about it. You see, if persecution was such a deterrent, why is anyone jewish today?

So this would be a pro-christian series then? The fact is Rome put a lot of noses out of joint. They habitually interfered and dominated neighbouroing solcieties if not setting one against the other to keep them off their own backs, and plied them with export goods to soften them as well as make a profit. As for the early christians, if you want to know how angry they were, check out the Book of Revelations - it's a thinly disguised politicakl call to revolt against the empire (and not a prophecy for our time as christian sects do love telling us)

In the ancient world, there was a high degree of emphasis on trickery when trying to gain advantage on the battlefield. There had to be really because command and control were in their infancy, if they existed at all, and thus surpising the enemy meant he couldn't do an awful lot to prevent the situation going bad. Most people have this image of generals in a tent pointing daggers at maps, but that scenario simply didn't happen back then. Both sides either had a pre-prepared plan or formed up to fight with less of a gameplan (to say the least). In reference to Cannae, Paullus and VArro were able commanders but I don't recall either being especially good. In any case, Rome far preferred cautious commanders who didn't take risks, both to prevent military disasters (you have to laugh) and also to put men in charge who weren't dangerously ambitious with lots of armed men. With such a large combined army the Romans rotated supreme authority daily. Varro was in charge on the day and considered the lesser of the two men. Whilst he might have listened to Paullus' advice, Paullus had no choice but to defer to Varro's decisions that day. The Romans far outnumbered the Carthaginians and in all probability felt no need to be clever - complex battle plans were very risky without much real time communication, not to mention a time when generals often fought alongside their men rather than lead from a tent way off at the back. The Roman plan at Cannae was simple - just steamroller the hap;ess Carthaginians and trample them underfoot. Such a large formation is however unwieldy and Hannibal had the foresight to exploit that. Firstl;y his' thin punic line' would look weak and very tempting from the other side, and by retreating, would draw the Romans on. The stronger side formations only had to maintain place - as the cohorts marched past, they began to turn to face them, thus causing disruption and disorder in the mass Roman formation. By winning the cavalty bout, it allowed Hannibal to close the Romans into the trap. Varro had not forseen the disorder that would result at the edges. Hannibal was in all likelihood hoping he wouldn't. Those cohorts in the middle would have been blithely unaware iof difficulty until the mass of men began to squeeze them together, with a resulting loss of any command and control whatsoever (indeed, it was reported that Roman legionaries were refusing orders from centurions they didn't recognise)

That begs the question of how busy can you be in a cohort of swordsmen waiting for those hairy barbarians out there to get on with it? I've always maintained that face to face conflict, however terrible, is far easier and more natural for human beings to cope with, since bladed weapons are allegories of teeth and claws thus rather instinctive in that sense. Also, the fact that you're shoulder to shouklder with the rest iof your formation adds a certain sense of security. (I have to go a bit further, because in the past I've said that firearms at a distance are easier. It is, because the target is far away and less threatening. That doesn't mean the noise and immediacy of modern warfare is, however. Far from it. Human beings do not psychologically like sudden bangs and suprises all that much. That's why horror films are enjoyed by people, because the suprises induce an adrenaline rush even though we know the risk of death or injury in the audience is usually somewhat remote)

Lets cut the nonsense. Soldiers feel fear regardless of training. Human beings have behavioural traits programmed into them and we're not immune even after basic training, however much we klike to assume so. veterans are very quick to confirm this. They often relate their personal feelings immediately prior to combat and it's always the same, regardless of the period. Strong discipline and good leadrrship offset these instincts (which is why they are so important) but never supplant it. I recall a documentary about british soldiers in Afghanistan. Coming under fire, one of them was severely injured (he later died sadly) and the soldiers were confused, made lethargic by the loud noises and sudden reality of their dangerous situation. The sergeant was furious at them and without his steaffast direction, they were close to collapse as a military unit. That's not a criticism of the modern UK armed services - just an observation from the safety of an armchair, watching young men under fire for the first time. I remember working alongside a gentleman who had been previously jailed for soccer violence. He enjoyed a good fight. So practised was he that it all came very naturally to him. He didn't think about what to do, he simply acted dispassionately. As it was, he still enjoyed a fake tussle or two and more than once he selected me as his sparring partner (I once fell through a door into a quiet office as a result. A bit embarrasing, but boys will be boys). The point is that he almost always had the initiative because I never had any intention of attacking him. But then, he was messing around, and I knew it. Had he been serious, yelling and rushing at me in wild abandon, I might not have been so amused or calm about my impending assault.

Not that I can detect. The period was known for industrial or social upsets (Soldiers had to fend off rioters with bayonets from Buckingham palace at one point) so the dispute at Mickleton wasn't unusual in that respect, though clearly a disgraceful episode.I do think however that the government of Great Britain did learn from the disorder as a whole - note how calm british society became in the latter half of Victoria's reign.

Julius Caesar was not directly invovled.

There's a good accoubnt here that references the London Illustrated newspaper, and also mentions an official report on the incident. Beaver-TunnellingHistory.pdf

I've always been interested in railways, but by chance I stumbled across a battle from the days of pioneer railway construction that I'd never heard of before... Isambard Kingdom Brunel is a familiar figure in history. The image of a tall stovepipe hat and fat cigar instantly recognisable. For the most part his work as a railway engineer is what he's known for, as well his achievements, and failures, in shipbuilding. He remains the quintissential victorian engineer. What he's less well know for is his part in a what amounted to a private war. The Great Western Railway had acquired inerests in the Oxford, Worcester , Wolverhampton Railway, a smaller company that proved to be a difficult partner with financial troubles. It would later be nicknamed the "Old Worse & Worse". The OWWR had begun building a line in 1846. By 1851 it was building a tunnel under Chipping Campden courtesy of a sub-contractor, Mr Robert Marchant, but work was delayed due to lack of payment by the OWWR, said to have owed

Warfare inspires a certain amount of hypocrisy. That's common to pretty much every culture that indulges in it or ever has. It is inherent in the psychology of human beings that we admire (or fear) those with aggression and a willingness to follow a vocation that uses that aggression in the defence of others. Not without good reason It should be said, as warfare is inherently risky (to say the least) and unfortunately, in our own era the psychological adjustments we make to our soldiers in training combined with the military regime and the demands of the hostile enviroment mean that those individuals are often not so well adjusted to civilian life. That's why politicians are often keen to praise their soldiers publicly irrespective of the behaviour of a few drunken individuals. Having said that, there are plenty of civilians who aren't especially well adjusted either. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

That's why the contubernium was important. In theory it provided for support if one of your lads was getting a lot of stick from someone else. The reasoning being that the centurion would intervene somewhat ruthlessly if things weren't settled quickly.

No, it refers to the inhabitants of the Roman province of Judaea. Irrelevant. The Jews claim such a descent and as such helps establish their idemntity as a people. The identification of individuals with divine origin or manifestation is not the same as a religious/civic identity shared by an entire people, especially since Abraham is not (and never has been) anything more than a prophet. The idea that a man can more than mundane isn't unsual. We see occaisional individuals even today who claim, or are credited with, powersthan can be classified as 'magical' or divine'. The Imperioal Cult, as an established belief system, represents an attempt by the state to harness the adulation often given by a people toward a popular leader. Since the Caesar's depended greatly on popularity for continued survival, it then follows the intent was not religious but merely self interest, and given the Imperial Cult was established in the reign of Augusts, it also seems fairly clear that Augustus was keen to avoid a similar fate to his great-uncle. Since Julius Caesar was the first Roman to be nominated 'Dicator For Life' (and thus as Suetonius claims made him the first 'Emperor') there was no precedent for a cult surrounding him. It is true that attempts were made to glorify him before his death (Antony was even made his flamen, or 'priest', but this was a bare-faced publicity campaign rather than a sincere religion. Once Augustus had been made Princeps "First Citizen" of the empire, he adopted the same principle but please note the restrictions of it. Augustus did not claim divine descent, nor was his cult overly publicised, and indeed it was only the nomination of Augustus as 'Caesar' (thus meaning a ruler as compared directly to his illustrious predecessor) that allowed Augustus to assume a role which apparently he was very dismissive of. In fact, the main reason for Augustus to permit the association was to promote loyalty from the legions. As must be fairly clear, Augustus did ot want to appear as a totalitarian ruler - that was part of the reason Julius Caesar was killed - but Augustus was keenly aware of the inherently weak loyalty of the armed men paid by Rome to fight, or more accurately, their commanders by Roman consent and support. For instance, note how he amalgamated the bodyguard cohorts of the various civil war leaders yet made sure they were dispersed in various barracks to avoid them becoming a dangerous power bloc (which they did thanks to Aelius Sejanus anyway). Whilst Julius Caesar is therefore clearly interested in self-aggrandisement and thus promotes his own divinity shamellessly, Augustus provides the precedent for imperial practice by creating a more restricted cult, and because it was Augustus, whose name means "The Revered One", whose succesful reign is being emulated or built upon by his successors rather than Julius Caesar, who for all his popularity and claims of divine origin, proved to be somewhat mortal when it was all said and done.

You are using modern English, which also did not exist in Roman times. The phrase 'Jew' predates the Roman empire, as the jewish people were said to be those descended from Abraham. The phrase 'Judaean' is the greek form of the word used to describe residents of a Roman province that existed between the arrival of Roman government (63BC) and the abolishment of the province in the 130's as a result of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The use of the word 'jews' refers to native inhabitants and is thus correct. Well... No... It isn't. The Imperial Cult was established in the reign of Augustus. That passage refers to the popularity of an individual person, not a persistent official cult.

Woah... Lets not get too carried away. Roman homes were dedicated to gods as well though I doubt many of those were considered sacred. The dedication in the case of Aelia Capitolina simply reinforces the status of the city in Roman eyes (which those ungrateful jews couldn't understand ). Also it ought to be remembered that not that single god was part of the deal. Local gods were also given temples (though undoubtedly under their Roman pseudonyms.

Auxillaries were pretty much like the Foreign Legion is for the French today, or the Ghurkas to the British, except they probably weren't expendable despite being considered lower grade troops, reflected in different equipment and lower pay. It meant a ready source of military manpower from volunteers who looked forward to becoming Roman citizens as a reward for their service. Treaties weren'r necessary nor did the Romans consider them mercenaries as they were led by Roman officers.

Firstly, Hadrian was a Caesar, not a king. Secondly, 'Aelia Capitolina' was his replacement city for Jerusalem which the Romans had all but destroyed and promised to rebuild. Since Hadrian intended to create a Roman city to further his ideas of romanisation it upset the Jews considerably, who believed he was reneging on a promise, and caused a further outbreak of hostilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelia_Capitolina The Temple Mount is part of christian mythos and is not a Roman creation as such. The city wasn't sacred but had sacred sites within it.