caldrail

Nice.... Except that Nero had nothing to do with the Boudiccan Revolt. It was settled locally in good Roman fashion. The senatorial governor Suetonius Paulinus rushed back from Angelsey to defeat Boudicca in battle, and Nero's man, Catus Decianus, who had sparked the rebellion by sending troops to sort out an inheritance issue, fled to Gaul in case he was found guilty. When Nero did hear of a problem in Britannia, he sent a freedman with such a ridiculously large escort that people seeing the retinue thought it was an army. The credit goes to Suetonius Paulinus. Likewise Corbulo was the man on the spot and settled the issue in Armenia. Granted, Nero sent him, but Corbulo was sent to do the work and was forced to commit suicide when Nero was persuaded he was dangerous returning as a victorious general.

LOL. Trajan did say that in his opinion the first five years of his reign were the best government Rome had seen. An interesting comment as this was the period when he was on the leash of his mother Agrippina the Younger (and shown as equals on coins of the period), and advised by Burrus and Seneca. It's when he had thrown off these influences that he went celebrity and lost the plot.

Nero helped rebuild Rome after the Great Fire of 64? Actually, that wasn't his motive, he was building Neropolis, the City of Nero, and it was costing him so much money he was blackmailing wealthy Romans to name him the inheritor of their will and commit suicide. It was excesses like that. Even with his armed forces turning away from him and the Vindex rebellion in full swing, he summoned senators on the grounds there was an emergency and when they gathered, told them "I've invented a way to make a water organ player louder and longer".

Apart from climate change you mean? Our modern climate patterns differ from those experienced two thousand years ago. Floods are conspicuously rare in accounts of Roman times. The only one I remember off hand is one in northwest Europe in the early 1st century which had Roman legionaries moving around up their necks, literally, and if they stumbled, they didn't get up again.

Christian relics have little or no connection with actual events or people. The vast majority are almost certainly fakes. Relic sales were big business in the Middle Ages. Plenty of easily impressed potential customers.

I don't personally like the EU but your description of it warrants some critique. Highly unstable? A formation of micro-states? It is, at least for now, a bloc of twenty seven nation states that has a democratic bureaucracy based in Brussels and won a Nobel Prize for Peace. At least two more states are working toward joining the Union. The United Kingdom left the EU as a result of a referendum within the country, a democratic choice, not because the EU was considered wobbly in any way. European Union - Wikipedia

It's very Middle Earth isn't it? Reminds me of an easter island head.

Getting dressed for a wealthy Roman or a Roman who wants to impress

Weapons are linked to usage. A single weapon used in an optimal way can be effective, but if used with a method or circumstance it wasn't intended for, it might not. Now regarding the gladius, firstly recognise that our primary evidence for its effectiveness is that the Romans used versions of their shortsword for around six hundred years. The gladius is optimised for use with a shield and preferably as a stabbing or thrusting weapon between shields in a mass unit frontage. It wasn't a battle winner as such - the Romans have a long record of defeats, and they themselves note that discipline was their key advantage.

Individual skills in weapons were tailored to the needs of their application. Legionaries practised a series of basic moves literally "by the numbers" which was no different to gladiator training but without the show stopping tricks and styles. Accuracy, consistency, endurance, and conformity were the emphases of legionaries. Late republican legionaries were described as focusing on thrust attacks solely, since the legions of the day always operated in close formation and used tall rectangular shields. During the Principate, we see this divided equally between thrusting and swinging as sword length increases, heavier armour comes into use with a short period of arm-guards and thigh protection, and the use of the square curved shield, which implies open order fighting was just as likely (you can't swing a sword around if you're shoulder to shoulder). It also suggests increasingly flexible tactics and responses to the needs of changing battlefield norms. The Roman system was designed to make everything as simple as possible, so a legionary could attack without hesitation. That's where gladiatorial training begins to differ, because fights 'by the numbers' are mentioned as being boring. Gladiators were poor soldiers on the few occaisions they were roped in (as slaves, they should not be allowed to fight for Rome) What audiences wanted was thrilling displays of skill and aggression at arms. Gladiators did see some use as weapon trainers as commanders employed them as bodyguards in camp, both to keep the men busy and interested, though how much this actually helped them in battle is debatable. In the late empire we see campidoctores, expert weapon trainers who were described as highly skilled and impossible to defeat. This is in some ways a development of the gladiator-trainer idea and also a desirable complement to the increasing balance shifting toward low level warfare like raids and ambushes, in which individual skills were far more likely to be important.

That's hyped up to show the Romans as bad guys. What is true is that Catus Decianus, Nero's man in Britannia and holding the reins while senatorial governor Suetonius Paulinus was away fighting in Wales, sent men to put Boudicca straight about the terms of inheritance of a client kingdom. Decianus is always depicted as Mr Nasty, but the truth we don't know if he was there, and he probably wasn't. He would have relished the chance to impress his boss in Rome with his efforts at running the British province, and leaving the office untended? Come on. When the rebellion kicked off after Boudicca was flogged and her daughters raped (sadly, that did happen) Decianus fled to Gaul fearing the consequences. That's not the behaviour of a psychopath ordering his men to commit vile acts, and in fact, nasty leaders wouldn't order a rape anyway, they would normally throw the poor girls to their men with an "Enjoy yourselves" message at worst. No, pre-prepared rape beds are fiction. It's a film gimmick to make you feel sorry for the Iceni and side with their stand against Rome, and bear in mind that as far as the Romans were concerned, the dead Iceni King Prasatagus had broken the terms of the client state agreement.

Formenko appears to dismiss archeological evidence. Ooops. I'm such a party pooper.

The Senate convened at the summons of a magistrate, more senior the better, and could meet at any place within one mile of city provided it had been consecrated to the gods.

Significance was on civic or religious grounds. Bathhouses don't count. Senators only required permission to travel to Egypt, the province retained by Augustus as his own.

The Senate could meet at any nominated place when summoned to convene. They preferred significant locations.

Caligula threatened to make his horse Incitatus a senator on the grounds that he though they were a bunch of useless timewasters and even his horse could do a better job. Bear in mind however that after he was assassinated the magistrates and urban cohorts seized power in Rome, for a day or two until the Praetorians got their way and had Claudius installed as Princeps. Younger Imperators had a habit of being less respectful toward the Senate, but those who cooperated (Antoninus Pius is a good example) tended to live longer. But no matter what level of influence a Roman ruler possessed, he still needed acceptance from the Senate as the traditional source of authority. No such thing as 'emperor', and the privileges needed to rule Rome were awarded by Senators. not by making grandiose declarations. Remember that the only office in Roman culture that conferred the right to command citizens was Dictator, abolished by Marc Antony and refused by Augustus who set the template for future leaders. Diocletian declared his word was law, thus instituting the Dominate period in which ignoring the Imperator made you a criminal instead of a free man.

The Senate had no authority to declare war at their own initiative, that decision was a privilege assigned to the Comitia Centuriata, one of the popular voting assemblies, and a ritual of throwing a spear across the border would follow a vote in favour of war. However, one example of when they did was Octavian using the priviliges he held to tell the Senate to do so against Cleopatra of Egypt. So right there you have an encapsulation of the change from democratic confirmation of aggression to military directive. As Princeps Senatus, Augustus as First Senator had the ability to suggest a war should be undertaken pretty much when he wanted, and given his overwhelming presence on the Roman political scene, he was likely to be listened to. He also had the right to intervene where-ever he wanted in defence of Rome's security, which given their policy of offence being the best defence, and holding the highest right to command (imperium maia), he could assume command of Rome's military whenever he wanted. Since the Comitia Centuriata were essentially by-passed, that requirement lapsed into history, which the SEnate were perfectly happy about. Later Imperators - the name meant 'Victorious General', not 'emperor, though did not confer any official power whatsoever) were emulating Caesar and Augustus hence followed similar prerogatives.

Romans would have had a veritable swarm of slaves caring over that garden.....

Not quite. It was Macro who got Sejanus to enter the Temple of Apollo where the Senate were meeting, then ordered the Praetorians back to barracks and had the Vigiles station themselves around the temple in case of public disorder - more or less an ordinary task for them. Sejanus was actually taken into custody by praetors and tribunes. The soldiery were in fact rather upset they hadn't been trusted.

So were the urban guards a sort of police force? Who was in charge of them? Sorry MagnificentBeast, I missed this one. The cohortes urbanae were formed from a few cohorts of the Praetorians, both to keep the Praetorians in order and to operate as a form of police force to help keep the streets safe. They were led by their own Urban Prefect. Much less contentious than Praetorians, the only time I remember them getting a mention was when magistrates used them to seize power in Rome after the assassination of Caligula. That lasted a day or two until the Praetorians got their own way and had Claudius made Princeps.

Britons or British please. 'Brits' is considered mildly offensive.

You might not have heard of these guys from Baltimore, the band leader passed away in 2013. Prog rock and a good listen.

Greeks and Trojans. No slavic involvement, sorry.

Heck, those are stunning