caldrail

True, though I feel bound to point out that not all the Goths were legal immigrants. Some were granted permission to cross the Danube, others followed in their wake without permission, although seems to have been less of an issue than exploiting the whole crowd of them extremely ruthlessly.

I don't think we can blame immigration for Rome's collapse entirely. I agree it was a contributing factor, but many of those immigrants adopted semi-latin lifestyles anyway. It is true that Rome had cultural ghettoes here and there just like any modern city, but we need to look closer at the decline of the upper classes than those who did what they were told.

In 689 a man named Peter died. That wasn't the name he was born with however - it had been given to him by Pope Sergius ten days earlier when he was baptised in Rome on Easter Day. His former name was Caedwalla, and he had been King of Wessex. His former life had been exactly what we imagine a Saxon warrior might have been. Violent and barbaric. The 10th century Annales Cambriae record in that year rain turned to blood in Britain. It is likely that Caedwalla was suffering from medical complications resulting of his past aggressions. He may well have known he wasn't long for this world before he gave up the throne and went to Italy on a pilgrimage. To our modern minds the idea that a man so given to violence would readily give up power for pious redemption seems unrealistic, but christianity was a very potent religion in the early medieval period. It wasn't unusual for a man to seek forgiveness for his sins toward the end. For those english of high status it might even have been expected. The fact Caedwallla had surrendered a throne for his beliefs was so impressive that the Archbishop of Milan wrote an epitaph praising him. The man who claimed the throne after Caedwalla's abdication was Ine. As with most rulers of the early medieval period we have little hard information about him. The Venerable Bede tells us Ine was of the 'Blood-Royal', meaning his descent was from the rulers of the Gewisse, the tribe of Saxons that landed on the south coast with Cerdic. His father was named Cenred, he had a brother named Ingild, and two sisters, Cwenburh and Cuthburh. He would rule Wessex from 688 to 726 and it seems his wife Aethelburh had an active part in supporting his rule, recorded as destroying Taunton in 722 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Not only that, Aethelburh was said to have led troops into battle on his behalf and has become in recent times a minor feminist icon.. Unusually for a king Ine's father was still alive and listed as a chief advisor in the prologue to the laws Ine wrote in 694 along with the bishops Eorcenwald and Haedde . There is no english parallel. Although Cenred was apparently an unambitious man, there is a confusing anomaly in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle of a Cenred who became king of the Southumbrians in 702, king of Mercia in 704 after Penda abdicated to become a monk, and went to Rome with Offa in 709 where he stayed, plus another Cenred recorded as king of the Northumbrians for two years from 716. Although the evidence dates from after the Norman conquest we are told his sister Cuthburh was married to Aldfrith, King of Northumbria, and that they later renounced connubial intercourse for the love of God, so she became a nun, first at Barking, then establishing a monastic site at Wimborne along with her sister when Aldfrith died in 704. She is listed among the saints with a feast day on August 31st, yet she was austere enough to inspire a vision of her in Hell. To understand the Ine we therefore have to look at the evidence of his actions. We also need to understand the nature of Saxon kingship. It wasn't simply a matter of direct hereditary descent, it was also a matter of status and influence, and as long as a man could trace ancestory back to Cerdic - the leader of the West Saxons who arrived in England in the troubled 5th century - he was considered eligible. So strong was this principle that the later West Saxon Regnal List is possibly distorted to ensure all kings of Wessex could trace their descent from Cerdic. To underline the turbulent nature of Saxon kingship, it's as well to remember that his predecessor Caedwalla had only ruled for three years until he went to Rome, and before that, he had been an exile from Wessex with only a small band of followers. In other words it was fear, respect, and private deals that got people behind you. With enough support, your claim to the throne was valid, regardless of genealogy. Wessex was unusual among the Germanic migrants into Britain in that there is no evidence of the racial apartheid such as that which took place among the Thames Valley Saxons, and indeed, the profusion of british names among the West Saxons suggests inter-mariage with the local population as a matter of policy. Caedwalla for instance is a british name, not saxon. Nonetheless the modern country of Wales is named after the Anglo-Saxon word 'wealas', which means 'foreigners'. The continued hostilities between Wessex and Dumnonia denote an antipathy with the native Britons, whose Roman inheritance had all but evaporated. There is no doubt that Wessex was primarily a warrior society as much as other Germanic peoples were, but clearly there was a strain of aggression and territorial ambition that would set the West Saxons on the path to greatness. A note of caution must be observed however in that Wessex was not entirely a conquest state, and some of the conflicts mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle such as Beranbyrig (Barbury) and Searobyrig (Old Sarum) probably had more to do with either internal politics or defence than a campaign of territorial conquest. There is some debate about the nature of the Saxon warrior and the composiition of his army. In fact the laws of Ine specifically define an army as a body of men numbering more than thirty five individuals, and we really ought to expect the size of armies of Anglo-Saxon England to have been remarkably small. The early days of raiding had passed and equipment was changing to meet the needs of a more organised formational army. Gone were the small shields suitable for skirmishing over long distances to be replaced by increasingly larger ones suitable for shield walls of formed units. Spears and swords are common throughout the saxon period, and axes grew in popularity along with shield walls, suggesting that axes were not always thrown as popularly imagined but were used to smash through enemy defences as a fireman might with a door. Cavalry is a debatable subject. Evidence points to a primarily infantry army that was itself highjly mobile. Cavalry should be considered rare, limited to wealthier warriors, and using smaller mounts typical of the period. We should not assume that Ceorls, or landowners, were automatically mounted troops despite seniority in status. Although these rather individualistic men were expected to come to the aid of the king in defence of the realm, in self interest to avoid death or slavery if not out of loyalty, there is no clear obligation to follow a king on an expedition although Ine's laws do mention a fine for not responding to the kings direction.. Anecdotes from later saxon times might suggest that the king had to persuade men to follow him on offensive, though in fairness it would seem the saxons needed little persuasion. The manner of fighting evolved also. Discipline was increasingly a factor. Whereas in times gone by saxons were probably prone to individual action as much as group cohesion, rushing forward in bravado or to throw spears before retreating back to the safety of the band, a more steadfast body of warriors would be more common in Ine's reign, though perhaps not quite the quality of Harolds army at Hastings.. Despite this background it isn't warfare that Ine is remembered for, but his code of law instead. It survived the ravages of time because it was copied as an appendix to those laws written by Alfred the Great. Sadly Alfred records that he rejected many observances of his forefathers that he didn't agree with so we cannot be certain that the appendix is a complete listing. Despite the potential loss of completeness, the Laws of Ine are very revealing o how life was for anglo-saxons of the day. His rulings were specific to situations such that it suggests a very simple way of life. There is also an underlying assumption that it was the king who settled disputes, not his local thegns. Certainly it was a society that was used to exchanging money for goods and services. We get the sense of a healthy agrarian economy. We also get a hint of how careful one had to be to avoid disturbing expectations of those around you. Entering a forest as a stranger or foreigner without proclaiming your presence by horn or shouting did not merely render you open to accusations of being a thief, it defined you as one. Unsanctioned gatherings of armed men less than seven in number brought the same result. Thieves expected to lose a hand, foot, or be put to death. Theirs was a society with clear ideas of what was or wasn't illegal behaviour, and harsh retribution for those who transgressed, although it must be noted that frequent use of a weregild to compensate those who had lost offered an opportunity to atone for a crime, and one that the entire family of the accused was made guilty of until restitution in some form had been met. Ine was strongly pious in his approach to the law. He made it compulsory to have babies baptised within thirty days or else a fine was levied at the negligent parents. Working on a Sunday wasn't exactly prohibited, but rather it was prevented from becoming a chore or mundane duty, and if the labourer was ordered to work on God's day of rest the man who ordered it was liable for flogging or fines, noble or not. Such was the sanctity of a church that any criminal who found refuge within one had a death sentence commuted. This set of laws has become one of the foundations of the modern English legal system, though you'd hardly find his rulings on the statute books today. We also know that Ine was generous and supportive of the church he had such regard for. When the sizeable Bishopric of Winchester - the one inaugurated by Birinus himsef - had gone into decline by 705, Ine had another set up in Sherborne with the respected Adhelm as Bishop. He made a number of charters for land to be set aside for monasteries between Streatly On Thames and eastern Cornwall, though some are thought to be later forgeries, and made donations to existing monasteries in Abingdon, Glastonbury, Harland, and Malmsbury. In the earlier part of his reign Ine appears to dominate politics in Southern England. Indeed, it was reported that one of his two sisters, Cuthburh, had been married to Aldfrith, King of Northumbria, though they later seperated. Surrey regarded him as king and Ine held Eorcenwald of London as his bishop. Hamwih, a settlement later to become Southampton, has been shown archaeologically to have been a thriving port in his day. The adjacent royal estate of Hamtun would eventually evolve into the county of Hampshire. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Ine is also credited with the building of Taunton (though in fairness that may be a later addition to his reputation to suit medieval sensibility given his wife was recorded as destroying the place). We might be forgiven for thinking of Ine as a great statesman, and indeed, he is sometimes described as such, especially when compared to his violent predecessor. Unlike some of the better known rulers of his era Ine never accrued the legendary status of people like Alfred or Canute, and this is despite a known sponsorhip of both the church and law. Whenl we look at the conduct of his reign we immediately see a man entrenched in war and political intrigue. Far from the statesman-like image he normally inspires, even a cursory study of the time suggests a man ruling with a heavy hand. He went to war against the Britons at least twice in 710 and 722, in the former case obliging his kinsman King Nothhelm (sometimes called 'Numa') of Sussex to march with him against Geraint of Dumnonia, expanding the territories won by former kings Cenwalh (643-74) and Centwine (676-85), and although he never conquered them completely, he certainly captured considerable territory from the beleaguered Britons. English place-names predominate in Devon and Eastern Cornwall to this day. There is however a mention in the Annales Cambraie in whiich the South Britons are said to won a victories against their enemies at the battles of Hehil, Garth Maelog, and Pencon in 722 - that could only have been against Ine. He also fought Coelred of Mercia at Wodnesbeorg (Woden's Barrow, above the Vale of Pewsey) in 715 and some suspect he did so again in 717 at Wanborough though the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle makes no mention of such a battle. Neither for that matter is Ine recorded as winning a military victory. When Ealdbehrt was exiled and fled to Surrey and Sussex, it provoked a war with the South Saxons first in 722, then again in 725 when Ealdbehrt was finally killed. Ine's wife Aethelburh is said to have destroed Taunton in her search for her husband's enemy. Bede tells that Ine ruled Sussex oppressively. He certainly forced a heavy tribute of thirty thousand pennies a year upon the men of Kent for burning Caedwalla's brother Mul in 687, even though Caedwalla had previously ravaged the Kentish countryside in revenge. As time progresses Ine comes into conflict more and more often. Essex had harboured exiles and a council was held to prevent war breaking out as a result. Surrey and Sussex became hostile and he was apparently beset with rivalries even within his own house. It's recorded that he killed Cynewulf in 721. Finally, in 726, Ine abdicated his throne as Caedwalla had done and set sail for Rome, possibly persuaded by his wife, and the throne was given to Aethlheard, a relatively minor contender whom later sources described as Ine's briother-in-law. As might be expected Aethelheards claim to the throne was not unopposed and a certain Oswald contested it, though with Mercian support for Aethelheard, Oswald failed in his bid. The Venerable Bede reports he commended his kingdom to younger men, suggesting he had grown tired of the struggle for power, and he went to Rome to live among the poor. The departure of Ine signalled a decline in the fortunes of Wessex that would last more or less until the reign of Ecgbert a century later. It isn't recorded when Ine actually died, but his wife Aethelburh returned to Kent in 728 following his death in Rome, and for their part the Romans were so impressed with his piety that he was regarded as a saint. Annales Cambraie - translated source Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - translated source Anglo-Saxon England - Sir Frank Stenton English Historical Documents Volume 1 (c.500 to 1042) - Edited by Dorothy Whitelock Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England - Richard Fletcher

Modern welsh descends from the language spoken at that time. It would have been spoken in Cornwall and Devon too had Wessex not finally crushed the kingdom of Dumnonia (whose rulers were described as 'Welsh Princes' in the records of Ecgberts campaigns, and as far as I'm aware, 'Wales' is a name derived from the Anglo-Saxon 'Wealas' meaning 'Foreigners')

I give Melvadius permission to agree with me

However, recognition of a child was not a right. Romans did not have to recignise the birthright of children and indeed the source of some slaves was abandonment by their families. A father could claim or deny a child was his - thus in terms of Roman praxctice, there was no guarantee that freedom would be handed out. It was a matter of consideration and in all probability the circumstances would be taken into account, such as what sort of man our Junian Latins happens to be. A man proved worthy? Or a wastrel? Rom,ans usually considered children to be chips off the old block after all (unless they were born in slavery, of course) Roman law is very specific. Slaves are not, by definition, human beings and therefore have no rights. Humane intiatives were aimed at restricting the abuses of owners however. If a slave is manumitted he is given a measure of humanity, but not a clean slate, because legally a former slave could not rise to public office afterward. Our modern views toward human rights aren't universal. The Romans were far more class concious and far more willing to punish transgressions, sometimes with considerabl;e brutality. For example sitting down beside a patrician at a public event could get a common man jailed. Status was signified by rings and the style of toga a man wore - there was once a call to have slaves wear some identifying feature but that was dismissed on the grounds that slaves would then realise how numerous they were.

On the origin of the word 'pound', from Wikipedia... The libra (Latin for "scales / balance") is an ancient Roman unit of mass that was equivalent to approximately 328.9 grams. It was divided into 12 uncia, or ounces. The libra is the origin of the abbreviation for pound, lb. The commonly used abbreviation lbs to indicate the plural unit of measurement does not reflect Latin usage, in which lb is both the singular and plural abbreviation. The pound was a unit of account in Anglo-Saxon England, equal to 240 silver pennies and equivalent to one pound weight of silver. It evolved into the modern British currency, the pound sterling. The accounting system of 4 farthings = 1 penny, 12 pence = 1 shilling, 20 shillings = 1 pound was adopted from that introduced by Charlemagne to the Frankish Empire (see French livre). The origins of sterling lie in the reign of King Offa of Mercia, (757

To some extent the personality of the slave-owner was important in considering the condition of a slave, but relaise that there restraining factors. The law for instance, which increasingly restricted what owners could do (slaves had no rights). Public perception - were you a good man who treated his slaves well, or a bad man who bullied and tortured tham? Would you want a bad reputation? Loyalty - Do you want to sleep safe at night? Do you want your slave to stay silent when snoopers enquire about your business? Do you want your slaves to inform you of everything going on? Do you want your slaves to steal from you?

The Imperial Cult of Caesar was nbased on a political need to inspire loyalty from the empires military. The religious symbolism derives from the rulers absolute power and since the Romans saw humanity as a step toward divinity, their distinction between the two was a bit more blurry than ours. After all, people like Julius Caesar claimed divine ancestory to underline their authoprity before they became top-dog. In the writings of Roman commentators we sometimes see allusions toward prophecies and signs - Suetonius for instance makes that part of his style and recounted odd anecdotes (which have very dubious authenticity) to emphasis that the individual he's describing had some divine favour, that he was marked out by the gods for future significance. As much as I'm willing to denounce the myths surrounding Jesus as much as anyone else, the parallel with Caesar is not wholly convincing. Crucifixion was used as a criminal punishment throughout the empire and it wasn't seen as religiously significant until Jesus was crucified, and then only to symbolise his suffering to save us all as the christians like to claim. The image of the cross used in this way was a more potent symbol than the fish, the previous christian symbol, and survived the late imperial chi-ro and celtic variations by the strongly romano-christian medieval world.

For a general idea, try this site... http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=eras&FileName=rome_2.php

Opinion is bound to be divided because the main source for this event is the bible, which is not an accurate hisotircal reference. The use of a spear to test whether Jesus had died might be no more than a translators mistake and in particular one from medieval myth. There is of course an incident in the First Crusade in which one of the defenders of Antioch predicted that the 'Holy Lance' that pierced the side of Jesus would be found if they dug in a certain spot. A lance was recovered, the desperate knights were re-inspired with zeal, and rode out to meet the entire turkish army which ordinarily would have spelt their doom. The turks fled (????!!!!) The point here is that the implement used to in the story is merely a prop, or at least one given given religious significance as many items real or fictional have in christian mythos. To be completely accurate, the phrase 'spear' in the context of the story is nothing more than a general description and should not be used in a definitive specific context.

But of course the english love affair with tea resulted from colonial imperialism in India. Before that it was good no-nonsense beer that saw you through the day. Hard to imagine pre-conquest Britons stopping a fight for a pint or too though. And many who confronted Caesar in Britain were gauls and belgae too.

I don't know the full details, but a young man at the age of 14 dons the toga virilis (his first adult clothes) and shaves ritually for the first time. I don't know of any requirement of a youth to be in Rome since families were all over the empire and still followed Roman traditions. However - the toga virilis also denotes citizenship, and that's an important consideration. Non citizens may not have practised the entire ritual, and considering some children among the poor and slaves had been doing adult work as as they were able to, it had less meaning for them.

Now you've piqued my interest because I can'rt anything either. The refernce is obviously obscure or perhaps, dare I say it, a 'non-standard' nomemclature. It's possible we know the conflict by another name but I can't see any connection.

It does grate against modern sensibilities doesn't it? Nonetheless this sort of thing has a latent fascination in human beings and animals are set against each other today in secrecy or in parts of the world without such ethics. Human beings are a very cruel animal sometimes. Bear in mind that the Romans did not have film or television. We see bloodletting and all sorts of shenanigans portrayed regularly, often with the perpetrator as a hero or focus of the tale. Then there's the evening news that shows real things happening, albeit it in a censored form. Whilst it is true that Rome was a society that carried a level of violence we would find unacceptable today, there was little entertainment for the masses. The arena filled that need and provided a means of securing popularity for the games sponsor. For most Romans, the opportunity to see a giraffe for instance was pretty well non-existent. Imagination a creature, half camel, half leopard, with a long neck and stately manner? Wow... But if the animal is dangerous, the only way a Roman can see that danger is by a demonstration of it. This tolerance of violence also demonstrated Rome's superiority by displaying mastery over nature. These animals might be fast and furious but they are fighting duels at the Roman behest. Romans wanted excitement, drama, tension, and an opportunity to gamble. It was, in its own way, a form of escapism. Rome was a vibrant colourful city at its peak, but as Mary Beard observes, it sucked people in and used them up. Mind you some Romans weren't so impressed with the bloodletting - it seems humane ideas are also part of the human psyche.

Also the species are not those involved in the Roman arena and hail from a single eniroment in which they co-existed and knew each others habits. Thus the mountain lion attacks bears succesfully because it knows how to suprise one and probably has no intention nwhatsoever of tackling one face on. African lions, such as those imported by the gold miners in the 19th century, did not have experience of bears at all, and as vaunted as the american grizzly is, caledonian bears in particular had quite a reputation. One account talks of a victim chained to a post to be attacked by one such animal and the writer tells us that whilst still alive, the condemned man's body was nowhere near as a man's should be. It doesn't take much imagination. I'm also wary of accepting a statistical argument based on modern sources (never mind the anomalous origin of the data). In terms of size and maturity, the Romans would have quickly realised that a bear was young and/or smaller. Since the games editor was attempting to please the crowd, it follows he would want the most impressive animals. Exotic beats of all sizes were usually paraded for the amazement of curious Romans. IT was the dangerous animals, other than those used for hunts, that were named Denatati and chosen because their potential violence was harnessed for corwd pleasing battles between beasts. Elephants were also used because their size, and reputation as an animal or war, made them impressive too. Rhhinoceri were pretty much unstioppable when finally persuaded to attack. Bulls were used in this way too, bearing in mind that the Romans had access to the now extinct aurochs breed, much more violent than than our dodgy modern agricultural descendants. It wasn't just animals being goaded with spears until they did something. We have evidence of animals tied together such as bear and bull so that the two would get angry and frustrated, thus attacking sooner or later, adding an elent of speculation and expectation in the crowds mind

Hello mate. You know that when you challenge you need to realise that your perceived argument may be based on biased or incomplete sources. As for the recent par-tay, check out the amercian gold rush of the 19th century. Those miners got a little bored and set up animal fights for entertainment. Hey... The bears won. Every time.. But then cougars were in short supply in Europe and Asia. Not that it matters. In the case you state, the cat attacked from an optimal position. That was far less likely in the arena. In any case Martial tells us of the difficulty of getting lions to actually fight. Bears seemed to take to it rather more easily and as I said, the Romans sometimes made heroes of them. I mean no insult buddy, but you might impress me more with some historical study.

That I suspect was circumstantial Not only because of violence, theft, and territorial encroachment, but also because of their political infuence as outsiders to the accepted regime. Also... Where now is the ancient wealth and dignity of the Romans? The Romans of old were the most powerful, now we are without strength. They were feared, now it is us who are fearful. The barbarians peoples paid them tribute, now we are the tributaries of the barbarians. Our enemies make make us pay for the very light of day, and our right to life has to be bought. Oh what miseries are ours! To what state have we descended? We even have to thank our the barbarians for the right to buy ourselves off them! What could be more humiliating andand miserable. Why has god allowed us to become weaker and more miserable than all the tribal peoples? Why has he allowed us to be defeated by the barbarians, and subjected to the rule of our enemies? We enjoy immodest behaviour, the goths detest iit. We avoid purity, they love it. Fornication is considered by them a crime and a danger, we honour it. Salvian (writing in the 440's) Although Salvian is stressing the differences in culture to underline his sermon, it would appear to based on a very real perceived comparison of morality. In other words, the bigotry was evolving because of a conflict in culture. We see the same trends in our modern times.

However we can describe the Romans as 'culturalist' as they certainly did have opinions about other civilisations compared to theirs. The initial incursions of goths were by initation, as they were desperate to avoid the Huns (and opposing gothic factions), and since Valens had already fought and won a war against them with an agreement to become arians (the religion, that is), Valens was well disposed to allow them to cross the Danube and settle. The Romans in the area immediately took the Goths for everything they had including children sold as slaves to pay for overpriced goods by rapacious merchants. The resulting 'rebellion' of goths was in response to this situation and the attempted assassination of gothic leaders. Those goths that went on the rampage afterward were gradually obstructed, mostly very successfully, by Roman raiding forces put together for that purpose. The goths lost a small battle at the River Maritsa but Valens was unwilling to wait for western support and encouraged by an over-eager Sebastianus (who was by that time desperate to keep his job against the intrigue aimed against him) met at Adrianople. Constantinople was not however seriosuly challenged by the goths and Fritigern (the foremost gothic leader at the time) was reputed to have said "we do not make wars on walls". In some respects then the hostilities were the only course of action left to the goths if they wished to remain free (although not explicitly stated, it does look like the local Roman administration had in mind to exploit their visitors to the absolute maximum). In other respects the Romans were consumed with inner rivalries and resistance against gothic violence, at least to begin with, was disorganised and in some respects rather feeble.

-What did he introduce to weaken Republicanism!? Strictly speaking he didn't introduce anything but instead achieved an existing role which was made his permianently due to his popularity with the common people. Because Caesar had become 'Dictator-For-Life' Suetonius declares him the first 'emperor' of Rome, or more accurately, that he was the prototype for the 'Caesars' that followed in that they too were esssentially dictators-For-Life. Previously in the Republic the post of Dictator was a temporary executive commander sworn in for six months or until the emergency had been resolved. It was not a permanent post before Julius Caesar obtained it and only normally assigned in times of danger to Rome, when it was clear that absolute command was advantageous over the usual more protective semi-democracy Rome ordinarily practised. -How did this affect the people of Rome?! Other than to accustom people to populist autocracy the effect on the lower classes was marginal. For them life went on whoever was in charge. For the senatorial classes it meant that their former privilege of power was eroded, and as a result would eventually erode further, reducing the emphasis on public duty and ambition beyond self-interest. -How did it affect the military?! It didn't. Although Caesars successor, Augustus, undertook reforms of the legions and attempted to impose political control over the legions as part of the First Citizens role, with partial success. -How did it affect the economy?! I'm not aware that the economy was overly afflicted. However, it does remain an observable record that industry in the empire prospered to its maximum in the century following Caesars reign.

Maybe they were Gauls? Sorry, couldn't resist that one

Be that as it may, the bear is more formidable - we have recordss of bears as named star competitors in the arena but I can't off-hand recall the same for lions, whcih although powerful carnivores in their own right, were usually sent into the arena in numbers and difficult to recognise individually. In any case, the bear is the more powerful, and this was proven in the more recent contests.

An interesting subject. There's been some study on the capability of big cats, even with reference to activity in american gold rush towns where animal fights were staged to stave off boredom, though in those cases the lion always lost to the bear because the cats skeleton really isn't that strong. There seems to be something very symbolic in these artistic recreations of a fight between lion and tiger - almost as if the Romans are attempting to stage 'gladiatorial' fights between powerful carnivores of roughly equal stature. That they managed to get the cats to fight at all is something of a grisly achievement - at least one animal trainer was executed in front of a colosseum crowd because his animals skulked around the periphery of the arena in terror of the strange enviroment they found themselves and refused to fight.

The battle of Mona merely destroyed the druidic power base. The Romans had already begun acting against them long before Claudius ordered his troops across the channel. Augustus had druidic worship banned, so I understand, and Claudius had druidism banned completely as it acted politically against Rome. There are however mentions of druids in the dark ages in remote areas, and irish cchristianity of that period is depicted as supplanting remnant druidic worship. Further, one Roman source mentions druids in Galatia, though in that case the writer is probably referring to gallic tribal judges, a class of people from whom the druids organised themselves in western Europe.

Why oh why did I ever doubt my geography teacher thirty five years ago? The man was a genius. He even saw though my usual 'fool-the-teacher' style of homework. A man before his time.