caldrail

I lasted to the end of the introduction. Thank heaven I didn't pay money for his book. The problem is the author has a preconception and wrote a book to justify it. That ain't science.

Looks like a very pampered pet assuming the depiction is anything like flattering. Odd that a Roman would call a dog a foster-daughter though. Beloved pet or no, Romans tended to be very overbearing where animals were concerned, and putting an animal on the same importance as a human being uncharacteristic. But of course, it might just be representative of cultural inclusion as a Roman anomaly.

I'm not wholly convinced by this. Norse culture became part of the English landscape to an extent, but southern England was never under Viking sway and remains the origins of what we like to consider 'standard English' (if there was ever such a thing). Norse influence is evident, but dominant? Our language structure would appear to derive from Germanic which itself varies somewhat.

Provinces of civitas status had their own senate based in the leading settlement. Many people assume that Rome ruled its empire centrally like it's done generally today, but they aren't aware that Rome didn't do that. Their overall policy toward subject territory was to have them paying loyal tribute with their own tribal-based but romanised leadership . A governor was sent there not to run the pl;ace but represent Rome, and to be the last word in Roman and native law., though to be honest many governors were happy to accept their assignments because it was a good chance to get rich quick. However - Italy had no provinces. This was a historical anomaly because Rome maintained the socii (allies) right to the end in the West. Athough the tribes had sworn loyalty to Augustus when the Principate began, and that he had organised a political structure that grouped tribes into specified regions, these former socii were still nominally independent subject states that were only described as provinces after the western empire had gone. Rome encouraged emulation during the imperial period, the Augustan Franchise, where settlements were rewarded with tax breaks and concessions by the Senate for things like aqueducts, theatres, walls, etc. This system had lapsed or broken down by the Dominate because the later Senate were no longer able to enact laws or decrees for themselves. It does stand to reason though that a senator of Rome saw himself as superior to a provincial version however approving they may be, and note that in the case of Britannia, they were somewhat less than impressed with their emulation of Roman culture.

I notice you refer to 'emperor's power' and it seems you insist on defining emperor as a fixed quantity. That's where you go wrong. I have said there was no such thing as 'Emperor' in Roman society and Professor Greg Woolf has referred to being emperor as 'not a proper job' (so did I coincidentially). Remember that Augustus never stresses power and tells us he had no more than anyone else. On one occaision he when he was made Consul he asked the Senate to give him two colleagues instead of one, because he thought it would be better to balance his influence. The Senate refused. These days we give celebrity status, authority, and presence on a sliding scale as it were and it seems you wish to apply that thinking to Roman leaders. However, they didn't do that. To them, a person had a range of qualities that resemble a role playing game personal attributes. Auctoritas, potestas, virtus, etc, were all separated qualities to measure a man by. Augustus claimed his advantage was auctoritas, his personal authority, representing the importance that people pinned upon him rather than any formal recognition of a job. After all, Didius Julianus became Imperator too didn't he? What power did he wield? I do stress Augustus but then he defined what being the senior statesman in Rome should be, that was part of his Res Gestae besides his CV. It was those that followed him, starting with Caligula, who saw holding the reins as more than a political career. And don't forget, Augustus saw his position as an extension of republican civic duty. One Roman writer, I don't remember which off hand, mentions how Augustus realised that having gotten into a position to manage Roman government he could not let go of it without risking instability. I have no doubt you will dismiss that as an excuse for power, but I think that would be missing the point. Augustus thought about retiring twice, once during illness, the other because he found himself as the sole candidate for political domination after the death of Antony. So Augustus had loads of statues erected. No big deal, that sort of propaganda wasn't unusual, even for people who weren't leading politicians. Cicero tells us that nothing pleased an elite Roman more than seeing a statue of himself in military guise. And bear in mind that many of these statues were designed with replaceable heads, or simply had a previous remodelled to suggest the current subject. Yes but can you prove that idea? No, you can't, or you would have posted some quote or reference. Fact is, if all you have is snide dismissals and your own random accusations, I'll simply dismiss them as irrelevant. Whoops. No he didn't. He never stationed more than three cohorts of praetorians inside Rome at any one time, and then during public events where the risks of crime were accentuated. Too canny to let power concentrate. It was Aelius Sejanus who amalgamated the Praetorian Cohorts in Rome and guess what, he did that to build a power base for his own rise to power, and I suspect strongly that Sejanus had rather less republican ideals than Augustus. Good grief how arrogant is that? You're actually trying to tell me what to think? Well, I'm afraid I'm going to continue being British and remind you that analysis requires evidence. If you can point to some that illustrates your point in that context, fine, I can accept it, but otherwise you're just talking out of your sublagaria.

Why would I automatically adhere to some obscure socio-political idea spouted by an American I've never heard of? You're right, I don't have to google it, it's no more fundamentally relevant than your own wishy wishy fantasy based on analogy with modern style tyranny. In order to be described as a tyrant, one needs to be described as seeking tyranny. Such people don't just happen, they are born and bred with such character, and act toward the goal they seek. The reason I 'stubbornly' continue to describe deeply rooted republican values in the reign of Augustus is because that is what the Romans describe as happening. Is Augustus described as a tyrant? Generally, no, despite some revisionist criticism from Cassius Dio who clearly disapproves of imperatorial power anyway. In this way he had his supremacy ratified by the senate and by the people as well. But as he wished even so to be thought democratic, while he accepted all the care and oversight of the public business, on the ground that it required some attention on his part, yet he declared he would not personally govern all the provinces, and that in the case of such provinces as he should govern he would not do so indefinitely; and he did, in fact, restore to the senate the weaker provinces, on the ground that they were peaceful and free from war, while he retained the more powerful, alleging that they were insecure and precarious and either had enemies on their borders or were able on their own account to begin a serious revolt. Roman History (Cassius Dio) But is Dio actually correct in his rather jaded view of Augustan power? I don't think he is. You see, he projects the opposite view in a speech he reports as being given by Augustus... From all this I have derived no gain for myself except that I have kept my country from perishing; but as for you, you are enjoying both safety and tranquillity. Speech of Augustus (Cassius Dio) That speech could be read either way, yet Dio is making it up. He loved to write rambling speeches in his histories that nobody could possibly have recorded for posterity. As an objective critic therefore, Dio is somewhat lacking in authority. He's biased. Do we ignore the testimony of other Roman writers? But when Gallus too was forced to undergo death through the declarations of his accusers and the decrees of the senate, though commending their loyalty and their indignation on his account, Augustus yet shed tears and bewailed his lot, because he alone could not set what limits he chose to his anger with his friends - Augustus (Suetonius) So the Senate decides a man should die because of his actions, and Augustus is powerless to help him? Why does Augustus allow this crisis to go unchallenged? Because he can't - the decision of the Senate was reached by legal deliberation and resolution. As I already told you, the tribunician veto enjoyed by Augustus (though he doesn't seem to have used it much) is limited to the protection of the plebeians by provincia, the field of responsibility that govern his use of exceptional power. Augustus is not all-powerful. It's there, in black and white. Or do we simply ignore Augustus himself? The dictatorship offered me by the people and the Roman Senate, in my absence and later when present, in the consulship of Marcus Marcellus and Lucius Arruntius I did not accept. I refused to accept any power offered me which was contrary to the traditions of our ancestors. Those things which at that time the senate wished me to administer I carried out by virtue of my tribunician power. And even in this office I five times received from the senate a colleague at my own request. For ten years in succession I was one of the triumvirs for the re-establishment of the constitution. To the day of writing this I have been princeps senatus for forty years. I have been pontifex maximus, augur, a member of the fifteen commissioners for performing sacred rites, one of the seven for sacred feasts, an arval brother, a sodalis Titius, a fetial priest. Res Gestae (Augustus) Please understand this. As much as Augustus was something of a control freak as a personality, he does not seize power in Rome even when the opportunity is open to him. The public clamour to be ruled by him, they even force senators to barricade themselves inside the meeting house during a riot in which the public threaten to burn the place to the ground with the Senate inside it if Augustus is not given Dictator. We even have Suetonius telling us that Augustus thought about giving up active politics when Antony died. Why? That event made him the front runner in Roman politics. Surely that was a moment to seize power with no clear rival to stop him? From early youth he devoted himself eagerly and with utmost diligence to oratory and liberal studies - Augustus (Suetonius) Liberal studies? Really? If history generally is any guide, would-be tyrants have nothing but contempt for liberalism. The point is, people - you included - like the idea of 'Emperor'. It's colourful, dramatic, a traditional point of view, safe, following the herd. In fact, that concept was why I got into Roman history to begin with, that fantastic image of a monolithic empire teetering on the edge of collapse because of some nutter on the throne. Except... There was no throne. Julius Caesar had set one up despite his claims he wasn't a monarch. As we know, his efforts to distance himself from monarchism failed and he was assassinated by a conspiracy that wished to avoid single person domination of Rome. But Augustus made no use of such symbolism. So attractive is the idea of 'Emperor', which resonates deeply in the human psyche more than the pages of history especially among those who don't have this sort of power, is that many historians will even twist the motives and explanations to justify the labels they wish to see. But there were plenty of significant individuals who wanted power in Rome. Is it necessarily tyranny to desire safety from malice, or peace from revolution? After this he nipped in the bud at various times several outbreaks, attempts at revolution, and conspiracies, which were betrayed before they became formidable. The ringleaders were, first the young Lepidus, then Varro Murena and Fannius Caepio, later Marcus Egnatius, next Plautius Rufus and Lucius Paulus, husband of the emperor's granddaughter, and besides these Lucius Audasius, who had been charged with forgery, and was most old and feeble; also Asinius Epicadus, a half-breed descended from the Parthini,c and finally Telephus, slave and pageof a woman; for even men of the lowest condition conspired against him and imperilled his safety. Audasius and Epicadus had planned to take his daughter Julia and his grandson Agrippa by force to the armies from the islands where they were confined, Telephus to set upon both Augustus and the senate, under the delusion that he himself was destined for empire. Even a soldier's servant from the army in Illyricum, who had escaped the vigilance of the door-keepers, was caught at night near the emperor's bed-room, armed with a hunting knife; but whether the fellow was crazy or feigned madness is a question, since nothing could be wrung from him by torture. - Augustus (Suetonius) Are these motives purely anti-Augustus? Celebrity status brings risk of violence, but clearly in Rome there were those who wanted to seize power for themselves, whereas, should I dare to repeat this, that Augustus was awarded his special status for the act of returning his emergency powers to the Senate and people of Rome, and his victory over Antony & Cleopatra. Stage managed? A political pantomime? Nobody who wanted to be a ruler would waste his time with malarkey like that. If you wish to rule absolutely, giving away absolute control is not a good start.

Then please indicate where the Roman sources mention Augustus throwing his troops at the Senate when they got argumentative? Why was Augustus recorded as leaving the Senate meetings with his tail between his legs because senators wanted to know when they could make decisions? I could go on, but I'll leave your challenge at that. Good luck.

Imperator - Originally meaning 'general' or 'commander-in-chief' but it evolved under the Principate into being synonymous with ruling, leading to our word emperor. Praetorian (Guy De La Beyodere) The name of "imperator" is held by them all for life, not only by those who have won victories in battle, but also by those who have not, in token of their independent authority, and this has displaced the titles of "King" and "Dictator". These last titles they have never assumed since the time they first fell out of use in the conduct of the government, but the functions of these offices are secured to them under the appellation of "imperator." Roman History Book 53 (Cassius Dio) Imperial Rome was still the Roman Republic, just the same old SPQR but with single person leadership accepted. There was no actual change of regime and indeed, Augustus had promised as a young man to the Senate that he would protect the Republic when Cicero persuaded them to make his army of Caesar's veterans legal. A more radical change perhaps, but as historian Michael Grant pointed out, Rome had always had an impressive record of change when it suited them. In any case, 'republic' means a form of government to us. Not to the Romans, it meant res publica, For The People, or the obligation of privilege to care for those without. It was the loss of that civic duty that Roman writers would later bemoan, not the loss of a particular regime. People make a big deal of the so-called emperors, but no Roman ever called himself that. Here’s the thing - the latin word imperator meant ‘victorious general’. It was originally used as a salute from the soldiers to generals who won battles and campaigns, a spontaneous military honour. After Augustus won the civil war against Antony & Cleopatra, he made ‘Imperator’ part of his name, to acknowledge his war hero status. Because he wanted to retain that military honour as well as owning the highest level licence to lead armies (imperium maia), he had the name Imperator renewed legally at regular intervals, something like twenty times over his lifetime. It did not confer any power or authority itself, although the word was derived from the latin verb imperare “to command” as was appropriate to Roman legions. Roman leaders preferred this title above all others for two reasons, firstly because Romans loved military glory and stressed its importance, and secondly, because Augustus had used it and so they felt as stepping into his leadership role they too had every right, even those without military victories to qualify (though some imperators later went on campaign to justify the title). But there’s a problem. Rome was a society based on ideas of free will and self determination, and if you command a civilian, then you enslave him - Cassius Dio especially underlines that theme in his writing. The ability to make your own decisions was fundamental to your humanity, and being unable to make your own decisions meant you were a slave, equal to an animal in status. So it was tyranny if you commanded ordinary citizens. That was why Roman leaders did not issue personal directives to society at large but made laws in republican fashion to control the public. Now, if we fast forward to the medieval world and beyond, we find that surviving Roman texts name the Roman leaders of the imperial period as ‘imperator’ and knowing what that word meant, it surely described a monarch? This was after all an era that began with actual experience of the eastern Roman Empire in its last days. That was why the modern word Emperor evolved. So our popular concept today of the ‘Roman Emperor’ is in fact based on a form that rulers of the Roman world had finally developed into, not as they began. Augustus had absolute control in Egypt, reserved as his personal province where the Senate could not legally go. He had control by proxy over regions with military garrisons. The rest of the Empire remained under Senatorial oversight, using self rule in loyal tribute, but with Augustus in the position of Princeps Senatus “First Senator” which made him more manager than monarch. The Senate began ignoring the democratic side of Roman politics - why ask the plebs questions to vote on when we can ask our leader? In fact Augustus went to some effort to reform the Senate for efficient government, which turned out to be a lifetime mission. So Augustus was in a senior position, hugely powerful thanks to his collection of privileges, but not a direct ruler. Nor did he want to be. As tradition demanded he returned his emergency power to the Senate and People of Rome after Antony died. He thought of giving up active politics at that point, so Suetonius records, because he recognised he was in a position to seize control of Rome, and he was more republican minded than that. It was fine to be powerful if you were a Triumvir, a council of three reformers, but as the only remaining triumvir, he was on less secure ground. He refused demands from the public to become Dictator. He refused proposed senatorial law to make him Dictator. He would later deny that he was ever Dictator at all. Yes, but critics claim, he had tribunician veto. He could stop any law if he wanted surely? Actually, no. One of the limitations of the Republic was that power was limited by provincia. No, not provinces, it meant areas of responsibility. Had Augustus vetoed everything in the Senate, not only would government have been impossible, he would be labelled as a tyrant and dealt with. His tribunician veto applied to preventing the aristocracy from abusing the common people. No other reason was legal, although Augustus felt obliged to veto Senate debate for seven years toward the end of his reign - but that wasn’t for his own power, it was a last all out attempt to get the Senate to behave and stop knifing each other in petty squabbles. An irresponsible government could hardly govern the plebeians responsibly. He relented just before he died when the Senate settled down after seven years of thwarted argument. And sole absolute ruler? Well, having learned his powers were wide ranging and respectable but not absolute, we also discover that Augustus shared his power as any good republican might. Marcus Agrippa received the very same powers that Augustus enjoyed, running Rome for a total of nine years in the absence of his friend. And his nominated successor, Tiberius, also received the same powers in order that precedent would be both observed and peacefully passed on. Augustus knew full well the risks of civil war if he did not ensure some sort of arrangement was made. So Augustus was Princeps Senatus (First Senator), Princeps (First Citizen), Pater Patriae (Father of the Nation), Imperator (Victorious General), and a few other titles, but never Emperor. However, when Caligula ascended to power, he had other ideas, and notably it was usually the younger Imperatores who thought the stuffy old Senate was an impediment to their personal rule. Those who cooperated with the Senate usually did better. But the power of the Senate did decline, either by their own compliance with military power, imperial influence and inheritance, or their own unwillingness to stand as a united body, until Diocletian declared his word was law, at which point he was legally commanding citizens and the Senate was no longer the de facto Roman government (though it was hardly that anyway by that time). Nonetheless, whilst those later Roman rulers were as close to monarchs as they would ever get, they still observed the Senate, still accepted republican style powers, and still preserved SPQR to the very end in the west. And the Senate survived them by at least a century.

After some thought on the subject, here's an outline of why 'basic training' is a flawed idea when discussing Roman legions. In a modern army, there is usually a central training organisation, units, or bases dedicated for the purpose of initial training. Having learned how to be a soldier, the individual is then posted to his assigned unit. That did not happen in Roman times. They did not have centralised training. It was not possible therefore to guarantee standards in basic training of raw recruits. Legions recruited individually, either at their own initiative or via the elite Roman to whom command of the legion has been allocated. Any training was conducted within the legion. There was no guarantee of a standard basic training. If the legion was at their home fort on peace time duty, a recruit might be given more attention and fitting in with the men would be simpler. If the recruit joins at a time when the legion mobilisations, tough, he's in the legion and must march to war as best he can. This is where the contubernium system serves admirably, because the soldier is introduced to a familia, a brotherhood of seven other men (the Contubernium was NOT a squad in modern parlance, it was not assigned duty or sent into combat as a unit, far too small for useful application other than a buddy system for morale and support). Also the role of the Centurion has to be emphasised. Despite much opinion that various Roman ranks and military titles were 'the equivalent of NCO's', there is no actual comparison. Rome did not like giving responsibility or command duty to men of lesser station, they had enough issues keeping them loyal and disciplined without letting them develop ideas of their own. Virtually all the Roman military titles below Centurion were jobs, not ranks, denoting either specialist categories or pay grades, but with levels of status - not command. The Centurion is the boss, the alpha dog, the organised version of a raider chieftain from Rome's earliest days. He is responsible for the leadership and training of his men. He has, in fact, considerable leeway in tactics and initiative, even given territorial responsibility sometimes. Technically the Optio "Chosen Man" is a job too rather than a rank in modern terms, one who serves as a 'right hand man' under the Centurion's authority, not his own.

The idea that the Roman legions somehow represent a parallel of modern practice does not easily die does it? I know how popular the idea of the 'military machine' is to some people, including some academics, but that idea is flawed because the sources indicate a less procedural reality. Was there any real standardised basic training? No, just an expected ideal that relied on conformal activity from legionary commanders and centurions. The legion was not a regiment. There was no single organisation called the 'Roman Army'. Each legion was a separate packet of military power which was formed to a standard pattern but capability was always more variable than a required standard, though there was a tendency for training to be more complete for new formations. In cases where the recruits are joining established legions, the training relied more on the newbie soldiers learning from peers than formal education. The Romans would not interrupt normal duties simply to train a few recruits who would have their assigned contubernium help get them up to speed. You will often see De Re Militaris (Vegetius) described as a military manual when it was nothing of the sort, it was an essay to suggest how the Roman military could be improved by quoting from examples of good ideas about training and practice - not all legions did all those things all of the time. Remember, to illustrate a known extreme, Corbulo went to Syria to collect an army to march to Armenia, only to discover soldiers that had never done any basic military drills at all.

Do not be anxious. Everything is in accord with the nature of the universe. In just a little while, you will be nothing, like Hadrian. Marcus Aurelius.

Unconvincing not least because the author attemnpts to tie stoicism with changes in the Roman Republic that he overstresses. SPQR was officially, to the very end in the West, the Roman Republic, which never fell, just accepted single person leadership into the old regime. However, Roman writers talk about a 'fall of the republic' but be careful because the meaning is misunderstood. Republic is to us a form of government, but not to the Romans, who saw it as res publica (For the People), the obligation of privilege to care for those without. Granted many elite Romans paid lip service only to the concept of civic duty, but that what the Roman Republic was supposed to be about. In the Principate, this was finally superseded by personal ambition and profit, the public fobbed off with panem et circuses, although to be fair Rome was unusually supportive of their poorest citizens compared to other cultures of the time. Is stoicism really a factor in politics? It seems to me more of a reaction against the competitive nature of society as a whole, seeking a more considered approach to life that tries to avoid the stress of the Roman rat race. You may well disagree.

Erm... A video of a "Yes Minister" episode? Hardly relevant to the case in point.

Well, we know that China received one embassy from Rome - quite an achievement back then - and they record one Roman ship arriving on their coasts. There's evidence that a few Chinese traders made it to the eastern fringes of the Roman Empire, but an interesting tale is about an official tasked with seeking military assistance from the Romans. He arrived at the Persian Gulf and asked if he could reach Rome by sea. Yes, the sailors told him, but you had to go around Africa and that would take at least three months with favourable winds and more than a years rations would be advisable. The official went away considering the Roman Empire too far away, but notice the important thing - the Persian Gulf sailors knew about navigating around Africa. Then of course is the somewhat apocryphal tale of how the Parthians tried to keep Trajan and Pan Ch'ao from finding out they were both in the same region two days march apart with powerful armies. Needless to say, the Parthians were alarmed that both these mighty empires might decide to cooperate.

Now this raises all sorts of ideas. Was the Neanderthal decline the result of disease? If so, was it the spread of Cro-Magnon that brought disease to the more static Neanderthal populations?

Caesar didn't topple the republican edifice, he simply took control of it by emulating then exceeding Sulla's methods. The Imperial period was not a separate regime either, just good old SPQR but now with single person domination in diluted form (though it got a lot less conformal from Caligula onward). What Caesar did was treat the Senate with respect, at least outwardly, which is significant given how contentious he was earlier in his career. Of course, this behaviour was just realpolitik - we are talking about a character who along with Crassus plotted a mass slaughter of senators to grab power. However, Caesar did allow (or encourage) the Senate to swell to ovr a thousand members with enough dodgy characters to make senatorial debate even less decisive that it already was in the period of lapsed Princeps Senatus leadership. Proscriptions were not quite an obstacle. The Seconds Triumvirate were especially keen on them and Octavian, though initially reluctant, the most ruthless of all. Yet all that seems to have been set aside once Octavian decided to continue after Antony's death and became Princeps Senatus. After all, those that survived had less to worry about. As for Sulla's legal machinations, we are dealing with a period where politics was wavering ever more precariously between radical and traditional politics, so once Sulla was out of the way not really suprising that some laws were repealed or changed.

Good choice of Severus. An able politician besides being the leader of a successful military coup.

Guy - bear in mind that the eruption was not a sudden event. It took ten separate pyroclastic flows to get over the walls and into Pompeii. Those found in their houses were trying to shelter from the pumice rain, which doomed them because the weight of ash and debris built up on the roof and collapsed them.

I knew it! There were interesting reports about the Amazon Basin going back a couple of decades or more. The foliage wasn't primary jungle so they knew there had been a human presence and some alignments in the terrain looked odd. Finally something more concrete.

Blonde hair and blue eyes are two mutations in human genetics dating to around thirty or forty thousand years ago. Just a guess, but I imagine Viking DNA is more prevalent in the northern half of Britain, where the Vikings had actually settled.

So they're human beings like the rest of us? (gasp) Shocking.

What has happened is two fold. Firstly warfare, despite its complexity, detail, expertise, and destructive potential, is heavily controlled on a global scale. Most conflicts are against movements that aren't part of the ritual politics that restrains the global community. The situation in Ukraine has received so much counter-support simply because it flew in the face of the 'queensbury rules' we like to believe matter. Ritual combat? That's no different from nature. Animals learn to face off with the minimum of harm, so do we. Except occaisionally a leader comes along who discards such restrictions believing ruthless strength is superior. Secondly, the scale of potential destruction is now so bad via nuclear weaponry that usage is undesirable to both sides. As much as Putin is a wild card, even he doesn't follow the advice of his media pundits and prefers to threaten than actually press red buttons. At least so far anyway. The question is one of survival, much like the ritual aspect. If a leader believes he has an advantage, he might be tempted, first by taking an enormous risk, afterwards by increasing confidence that he will get away with it. But the ritual of nuclear confrontation does not yet have a scale of escalation that is meaningful in terms of what you can achieve without complete retaliation. For all their bluster, North Korea are no more likely to fire missiles than Putin's Russia. Because they don't yet know what they can get away with and the risks are so far to daunting. Mutually Assured Destruction. It worked since 1945, give or take some close calls.

I'm listening to a representative panel discussing ramifications of the Ukraine situation. One guy broodily looks at the audience and says that "war is not the normal condition of human beings". Excuse me? Has this guy ever read a history book? Does he not understand that warfare is merely the modern expression of tribal or group conflict common to mammalian social animals competing in the wild? I agree warfare is not desirable to most people, that it can be very destructive in the way we compete today, yet warfare or the threat of military action is an ongoing process. David Starkey has made clear that the reality of Human activity revolves around the ability to wield military force. This has always been true. Why the Iron Age ushered in a very violent world because of superior weaponry and reliance on resources to support such violence and the rise of the warrior society. Why the decline of Rome's ability to exercise military power was so influential in their demise. Why Stalin for instance once derided the Pope by asking how many divisions he commanded.

Wait... Isn't this like claiming to be knowledgeable by repackaging what was already known? The benefits of a largely vegetarian diet are well known - just ask my doctor - but claiming Roman vegetarian diets were somehow superior and explains why they were capable of the supposed physical effort rather confirms how poor modern expectations and diet are instead.

It's funny how military activity can turn these things up. You would think, probably quite rightly, that's it's nothing but destructive, but the major reason that Barbury Castle in Wiltshire still exists is because the US Army in WW2 wanted to site an anti-aircraft battery up there on the ridge and started bulldozing the area, right up until they started digging up skeletons which turned out to be from a Saxon graveyard.