caldrail

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.

The Romans did indeed desert the area, but it's disputed whether the Goths were left in charge. Some say the Carpi were more likely. In any case Constantine I reconquered Dacia in 336 (and it was again abandoned soon afterward when Constantine died)

Strictly speaking Galba in 150BC offered the Lusitanii land that he was fighting over in order to resolve the conflict, although in his case it was nothing more than a ruse to trick the Lusitanii into surrender.

They say that in Britain you're never more than six feet from a rat. Experts of course brush that aside as old wives tales, but clearly they haven't discovered Swindon. I often come across one straying into sight along footpaths and although they prefer to shy away from me, shy they aren't. One or twice I've nearly trodden on the little monster. I say this because I'm seriously starting to wonder if I'm sharing my home with a furry squatter. So far there's no confirmed sighting of a rodent inside the house but it's becoming hard to accept that I'm not just buying food for myself. The evidence points to a mouse rather than a rat as I don't seem to have contracted the Black Death just yet. Or is my visitor getting impatient for me to die horribly? I woke the other morning to find yet another impressive scratch on my person. Not a pleasant thought. Bigger Critters Finally my bladder won the competition with the feature film on television last night. Time then to relieve the increasing physical and mental stress and so it's off to the loo. As I walked in and switched on the light a flash of brown fur sped away from view the other side of the glass. What the...? A fox? I had no idea a fox could get up to that window. That was a serious shock to the system. Had the window been open the crafty little critter would have been inside and chances are I would only have known after the contents of my kitchen had been spread across the floor in search for food. With newspaper stories of foxes losing fear of human beings and seeing if they can eat one very much in mind, it was a sobering thought. That's one window I'm keeping shut this summer. I saw him later on stalking around the yard, pausing to investigate the possibilities of a dumpster, then vanishing into the shadows as it sought something to eat. Now there's a thought... Was the fox at my window merely to chance his luck, or was it trying to get hold of something in particular? Even Bigger Critters Never mind being eaten by small furry mammals. It seems a few nights ago I disturbed an attempted burglary. Didn't see anything but there were two of them as one warned the other I was coming. Maybe I should be public spirited and warn them of the risks of carnivore attacks? Hmmm... On balance, I'll let them die horribly. Serves them right. With a bit of luck it'll catch those two graffiti artists I saw at work in the alley last night as well. Luckily we humans come equipped with superior intelligence, communication skills, and plenty of experience in eradicating anything we regard as pests. Welcome to the food chain.

You're probably right, but bear in mind that formal treaties weren't quite the same as today, since barbairan tribes didn't adhere to Roman literary standards thus often they established 'friendship' or informal agreements under oath which were binding nionetheless.

I'm struggling to think of an example I must admit. Hadrian returned territory in Dacia and the Middle East, but in those cases, histilities had already been settled and the move was diplomacy aimed at preventing revenge campaigns. There is of course the withdrawals in Caledonia?

What next? A seven foot tall skeleton with diverse genetic origin complete with rusty bolts either side of the neck vertebrae?

Clearly musical instruments weren't highly valued back then.

Plutarch does describe how the drum is constructed and indeed appears to understand exactly what a drum is, even with bells attached.

I was amused also by the weariness Cicero displays when he mentions the various excuses put forward by small groups of slaves entrusted with messages both near and far.

There is a mention in Plutarch's account of Crassus in whih he mentions that the Parthians at Carrhae did not use horns or trumpets like the Romans, but instead used drums with bells attached, more to do with making an intimidating noise than transfer orders I imagine.

Now I'm annoyed. The Clark family (if that's their real names) have opened Caldrail Ltd back in 2004 and done no business whatsoever since. Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Maybe they thought I was going to be famous? There's hope for me yet.

Let's not forget that children are not widely known for looking after their toys and thus many simply disintergrated under use or were destroyed as the children came of age.

However we might like to consider that such toys aren't easily mass produced. The vast ranks of plastixc soldiers we're accustomed to today weren't available back then (obviously) and thus no more than a handful would be typical in my estimation - we certainly have no record of toy makers contracted to recreate the tenth legion in miniature, although in fairness the children of wealthy families were often treated very indulgently (even alowing the amusement of extteme cheekiness from the youngster). It would appear though that in general toys were less important to childhood than our own experience. The descriptions of children (which seem to somewhat in the background in Roman eyes) rests more on play-acting, larking about, or mischief, none of which require toys and instead rely on the child learning how to relate to the adult world around them.

It's somewhat galling to note that every other person with the same name as me appears more often on the internet. So much for my publicity department...

I would have thought that the reason we don't see much of childrens toys in archaeology is that there were never many of them to begin with. Child labour was a fact of life for the poor and even those from wealthy families were obliged to grow up very quickly.

Strictly speaking a woman was the possession of either her father, guardian, or husband. Traditionally women were supposed to be the maternal pillar of the family, the organiser of the household. It was however a very typical role in a male dominated world although the Romans had an uncharacteristic respect generally for their womenfolk, so to compare them to modern day middle eastern values, they didn't hide them. Women were not educated apart from perhaps music to entertain her partner, though in reality many did learn how to read and write. There were changes in this gender relationship. During the late republic for instance, which was the old austere style of society now coming into wealth and prosperity by virtue of their conquests and dominant trading position, I note that men and women sat together in public entertainment (Life of Sulla - Plutarch) whereas when larger formal stadiums were built, women were restricted to the upper levels of seating. There is a curiosity then about imperial women. On the one hand they had a lot of free time (or at least the wealthier ones did) which allowed them to get up to all sorts of activities. The sort of lustful behaviour that Sempronia shocked the republican world with was no more than gossip in imperial times. Yet at the same time, despite this apparent freedom, there does seem to be an increasing formality about gender relations, and we see Augustus passing laws with the intention of spporting traditional family life.

A phrase used to describe a slave in Roman times was 'talking tool'. Does that illustrate the point? Much depended on circumstance. The Romans themselves were well aware that their kitchen slaves ate the same food as they did on the quiet. Some were allowed to run businesses or informal families (though legally the children were the property of the slave-owner). Cicero often mentions slaves being used as oral or written postmen (and tears his hair out at the clumsiness of some of them - note that slaves used as messengers in this way are not described as travelling alone). We even have instances of slaves becoming close friends of their masters or after manumission, marital partners. That however disguises some very harsh treatment. Claudius brought in some laws relating to slave ownership (not for slave rights I should add) when he observed several unwell slaves having been abandoned to die. Jealous wives might well give attractive female slaves a hard time, as a man was free to use a slave as he wished, but a woman was not supposed to have sex with hers. Bear in mind that as a slave, you were not considered a human being under Roman law. Whilst it was sometimes a good idea to show humanity toward your slaves in order to impress society with your good character and generosity, this was often on face value only. Many of the trades given to slaves were obviously onerous, and what choice did they have? In terms of gladiators much the same applies. The star athletes were treated very well - taken to the best social functions and sometimes made the subject of errant womens desires, and so forth, but they were still slaves nonetheless. Most were confined to barracks (since many had gotten themselves into a gladiator barracks to escape hard labour in rural industries, arguably professions with shorter life expectancy, and escape from the barracks was always possible). Therefore the treatment of a slave depended on what function the slave was suppopsed to perform, who required those services, and the character of that person. There seems to have been something of a love/hate relationship in general. The Romans were very concious of their proximity to people who may well have reason to bear a grudge against them.

Caesar did indeed give slaves to his men. having a legionary as a master probably didn't score highly on care of the slave. Many would have been set menial tasks like cleaning, cooking, or simply lugging stuff around in the baggage train. I don't know what became of these slaves - no further mention is made of them - and we have a surviving letter from egypt in which a soldier tells his family "Nothing happens around here without money" so the odds are many were conveniently sold quickly as transferable booty, which I suspect Caesar had in mind all along. As for getting slaves to market, that wouldn't necessarily entail a journey to Rome though I imagine many of them ended up there. There is one precedent however in the case of a Roman general called Galba (not the later caesar) who duped lusitanian tribes into captivity. Having executed large numbers he put the rest in chains and sent them to Rome. In other words, having been cowed by the csrnage and chained, it only required a small detachment of soldiers to keep them on the journey. As for slave escapes, we know this went on, and that shouldn't suprise us. However the escaped slave could expect severe punishment if caught and even if as in this case they probably had no identiying feature (other that being nervous gaul warriors), slavery was not unusual in the ancient world and there's often a grudging acceptance of their lot. The ability of an individual to rebel or escape depends much on their morale and spirit - I doubt those gauls had much of either left.

I would argue that the increasing social mobility as the empire aged was very much a symptom of the empires decline. Think of Rome as a huge multinational corporation (the analogy works very well).

There is of course an option that a legion now and then employed a drummer for the purposes of generating loud noises in the charge. That had been the case in Republican times but set aside as standard practice in the imperial. Widespread use of drums is not illustrated in monumental art, or any other in Roman archaeology, whereas we do see evidence of those instruments we normally associate with the Roman military. Perhaps the soldiers merely enjoyed camp music rather than hear drums on the field of battle?

Drums were not used by the legions, not only for cultural preference, but also becuase the noise would prevent orders from being heard. Troops marched to the 'pace stick' which a centurion would strike against a shield or whatever, a sharp and audible sound with less echo and resonance than a drum.

Why wasn't there another Plutarch in the Middle Ages? Someone to write parallel lives comparing great Romans to their eventual germanic masters. Were any of the germanic warlords worthy of such comparisons? Theodoric the Ostrogoth? Charlemagne the Frank? Or should we look to the modern era and compare Caesar to Frederick the Great, Bismarck, or even Hitler? No true Roman regarded a barbarian as his equal When in Rome, do as the Romans, as the saying goes. In fact some of these warlords are discussed by byzantine writers such as Zosimus, Jordanes, and so forth.