caldrail

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.

It's always going to be a bit speculative though, isn't it? If the image was derived from bones as experts seem extraordinarily capable of, I would accept it, but statues are not actually facsimiles in the Roman world but rather icons of a personality cult, sometimes idealised, sometimes simply symbolic and woefully inaccutrate if recognisable as a 'brand'.

Romans did not automatically authenticate the fatherhood of children - it was a matter of confirmation, and thus largely choice even in cases where it was clearly obvious. Unless the father proclaimed the child was actually his, it legally wasn't. In any case, if an ownrer fathered children by a slave woman then those children were by definition the property of the father and slaves, not actually children of his. If a woman bore a child from a slave father... Oh no... That's not done... Either the child is abandoned, left with caring people anonymously, or adopted by a family by ruse or private agreement.

A withdrawal.