Maty

Getting back to topic, we are I believe discussing the imperial period legions, as I can find no reference to people leaving the legions unless they deserted or were invalided out. In the dominate of course it was a different matter. With pay and conditions being less attractive, conscription was widespread, and peasents often mutilated themselves to avoid the 'draft'. Here's an extract from the works of my favourite author in a book called Legionary: the Roman Soldier's (unofficial) guide, coming out in spring 2009 Nunc dimittis You can be dismissed from the army under one of four separate columns in the legion's record books. I. Missio causaria is for those who have injuries that make them unfit for further military service. ... the patient is examined thoroughly before the doctors reluctantly announce that Rome will get no further return for its investment in feeding and training this particular about-to-be-ex-soldier. A misso causaria is an honourable discharge, and carries with it some pension rights related to length of service. II. Misso ignominosa is not an honourable discharge. Quite the opposite. This discharge announces publicly to the world that the army considers the dischargee a bad lot and unfit for even military society ... He is barred from living in Rome or ever taking up an appointment in the imperial service. Whatever crime caused this discharge probably also earned the perpetrator a whipping so severe that he will carry the scars for life as a further badge of shame. (Such a specimen might well end up in the arena btw. Another reason entire armies ended up in Rome is for a triumph) III. Missio honesta is an honourable discharge. This is by far the best column to have one's discharge listed under. You have completed your service to the full satisfaction of your emperor and army, and are entitled to full pension benefits and other privileges that go with being an ex-soldier of Caesar. IV. Mortuus est is the alternative way to leave the army

I tried, and found that there were a number of very useful articles - but getting to them was not easy. However, they do have a very easy to search database, and I've used that to track down articles I would never have known of otherwise - e.g. one of Cicero and clinical depression. Sadly, even when I tried to get in using my access as a Cambridge researcher - which means I am theoretically allowed - the program chucked me out with a scripting error. I finally got the Cicero article using MSAP (motivated student and photocopier) but this is not a lot of use to the wider world. It is annoying that there is so much useful information online that is protected to the point of being almost unusable.

I've just received an email from a reader who teaches Latin. He assures me that one of his students has translated 'alphabet' as 'he has a mountain'. This must be a leg-pull, no?

It's going to be fireworks day - Nov 5 now ... the first impressions were done on Monday, but apparently all went to book clubs and trade at the Frankfurt book fair. The US release date is still uncertain ... I think they are waiting to see how M. does in the UK, but he's definitely off to a good start!

The author begs leave to inform the UNRV membership of the publishing event of the decade, (well, of the day -okay, of the next few hours, all right?) when his history of Mithridates is released to rampage across the bookshops of the United Kingdom. It's a mix of military history and biography, with emphasis on the hitting people with sharp objects part. Pirates, sieges, epic battles etc feature along with a regrettable lack of noble heroism. I wait with interest to see what the informed readership of this community make of it ...

And no juxtaposition of candidatus nero? O tempora o mores ... And which McCain - McScipio? McCanna? McFerrula? Help, Nephele!

Ah yes, evidently an early third-century Roman depiction of a Sassanid cavalryman. Indications are patterned purple trousers, effeminate appearance, brandishing what appears to be an exotic weapon, and riding one of the famous Niscean horses. Greaves on the horse reveal this is a currently unarmoured cataphract.

Concrete, law and social structures are all well and good, but my vote goes for silk underwear!

There have been a few discussions on this one. We can be sure that Decebalus was not captured alive, as Trajan would have loved him to star in his forthcoming triumph. However, saying 'I found his corpse' does not sound anywhere near as grand as a memorial. The interpretation which best fits what we know is that D. was on the run from the Romans, and killed himself to avoid capture as he heard the cavalry of Claudius' troop approaching. Claudius arrived whilst the king was alive but dying - it's quite hard to kill yourself instantly with a knife - and so effected the capture and ensured it could at least be claimed that D. died a Roman prisoner. Since Viggen has mentioned that 'Lives of the Romans' is out on Monday, I trust I'll be forgiven for giving it a plug by mentioning that Claudius is one of the 100 Lives Jo and I cover in the book, and the illustrations include both the memorial of Claudius and a (full page colour) pic of the incident as recorded on Trajan's column. [Edited to correct spelling of Viggen!]

According to today's Telegraph, two statues were found at Kythnos, a Greek island in the Cyclades, in a submerged port. They appear to be some Roman-era recycling in which unwanted statues were used in construction work - not uncommon in ancient times. I'm not sure of the dating - the writer says 2nd century AD which seems about right at a first look, though he also seems to think that the Roman conquest of Macedonia happened about this time. Pics are here ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...Aegean-Sea.html

Not just your average ballista, this is the mega-version that stands over two meters tall and was made for a television documentary. Interestingly, it broke because modern ropes were not as good as the twisted ox-sinews the romans used. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/ro...artillery_ebay/ Full specifications are The ballista is 7.5 meters tall, it is 8.5 meters long and weighs 12 tons.(added by edit)

But weren't both the Baylonians and the Egyptians famed for their archery? As I understand it, in the Polybian period, your Roman archer of choice was a Cretan mercenary. During the third Macedonian war against Perseus, the Romans queried the size of the Cretan contingent they'd hired, and the Cretans rather sheepishly admitted that the rest of them were already drawing wages to fight on the other side. As a separate point, I thought some Sarmatian heavy cavalry used bows before they swapped them for close combat weapons. Given that the bow was widely used in hunting by aristocrats - Domitian was a famous hot-shot - I'd not be sure about the effeminate bit, but certainly with Romans in battle the 'give 'em a taste of cold steel' mentality prevailed.

My wife and I watched it twice, once together and once each in separate showings. I was repeatedly banished from the room mid-way through series one because I kept pointing out inconsistencies with the historical record. During series two I became slightly hysterical and again had to watch the rest on my own. Despite some odd and frankly bizarre bits (Cleopatra anyone?) I actually enjoyed it more the second time around, and rather like the grim and grubby way they have portrayed the city itself.

My own feeling is that Pompey was really shaken by the way Sertorius handled him. Having nearly come to grief in a major battle, his response seems to have been to avoid these altogether. This was no illogical response, since it was generally agreed that once two reasonably well-matched armies went head to head, it was sometimes a minor, previously unrecognized factor that proved decisive. In other words, a major battle was a gamble, and Pompey was a good enough general not to have to gamble. Actually, Pompey's ability to win wars without fighting battles places him in the top flight of generals. However, his achilles heel was that he did not only avoid battles because he didn't need to fight them, it was - thanks to Sertorius - that deep down he felt he couldn't fight them. As evidence of this I point to Pharsalus, where Pompey, despite having had Caesar on the ropes several times already, basically flunked it. When things went badly for Caesar, Caesar was able to turn things around (sometimes literally, one standard-bearer at a time), but Pompey, at the first setback withdrew glumly to his tent to await the 'inevitable'. I'd conclude then that Pompey the general was so good that despite what in other generals would have been a fatal flaw, he went from success to success. I'd also assert confidently that in any way apart from fighting battles he was Caesar's equal or superior. The problem is that for a general, winning battles is kinda essential, and Pompey's weakness here was fatal.

When you say "Irish", you may be talking about the the inhabitants of the island Ireland (Ulster included) or using the demonym for the Eire (with the small closer islands included). You're mingling the use of two deifferent gentilics (both equally correct); one for America (the Continent) and other for the country called "United States of America"; sorry, but there's no official alternatives neither for the name of the country nor for its demonym. BTW, neither Chile nor Canada have the word "America" included within their respective official names; that's why when Osama Bin Laden declared war on America (SIC), they weren't involved. Okay, let me check I have it right - Canadians are North Americans, and Mexicans are Latin Americans but they are not real Americans, in the sense that say, Hawaiians are Americans. And while we might talk of plant and animal species as being American even if they are not in the USA, we should not include humans. And when the 'colonial masters were ejected from American soil' this was in fact the soil of the United States which did not at the time exist, though America - including the non-US bits did. And while California was in America at this time, it was not in fact American until it became part of the United States. We now need to point this out to institutions such as The Organization of American States .... The point I am rather labouring here is that the writer of the article unnecessarily conflates 'American' with' United States' (which does actually work as a gentilic) and in so doing does indeed create confusion where a more careful choice of words would make it clear. As it said, it was a nit, which I feel I have now all too comprehensively picked. As we have wandered somewhat from the main topic, I'll happily allow you the last word, and drop the subject.

No confusion: the official name of the country is "United States of America" since 1777 (no other independent country in the Western Hemisphere until 1804) and it's today the only official name of any nation with the word "America" included, while the words "United States" are included in the official name of Mexico (and formerly of four other countries too during the XX century). "American" is the official demonym for this country. Um, I beg to differ here. America is two continents - North and South America. The United States of America designates those states - e.g. Rhode Island and New Hampshire which chose to unite. This did not make those American states which did not choose to unite - e.g. Chile and Canada any less American. There was an America before there was a United States thereof, and simply because one set of states chose to unite does not take the other states less American. I am a citizen of the European Union. I am European. I certainly would not say that the Swiss and Norwegians (who are not part of the EU) are any less European. That said, I am again outside my sphere of competence here, so will happily bow to more qualified opinion.

'I will be content if my words are useful to those who want to know what happened in the past, since human nature being what it is, this is going to happen in much the same way at some time or the other in the future. I'm not writing for the public of today, but for all time.' Thucydides on the Pelopennesian War - one of the very first historians, and still one of the best. But we are looking at Roman history, no? In which case I urge reading Polybius 'On the Roman constitution', book VI, not least because the founding fathers of the USA did so with great care, and which is what the writer is referring to (though it appears to have slipped from the reading list). Just to nitpick, I suspect the confusion between America and the USA from which the writer appears to suffer - viz 'And so the republic is saved and goes on to defeat its colonial masters, ejecting them from American soil' may rather grate on some Canadians and Latin Americans, even as it makes parts of the text inaccurate. [edited to add extra detail]

# You there - vir 'orrible et parvus! I want that helmet properly polished, you hear - I want you to be able to shave looking at that thing! Talking of shaving, I'm standing on your $%^&!! beard, you disgusting creature. Get the face fungus off, and stand closer to your puglio next time you shave. Mooooove! I'd have made a great optio ...

I've been doing some work on Trajan's column and noted that some legionaries are clean-shaven and others, sometimes in the same group, have beards. Does anyone know if there was an 'official' position on shaving or otherwise, or was it up to the individual? My guess is that - as with, say the Rhodesian army of the late 1970s - you'd be allowed to grow a beard as long as you could grow a good one. However, any information on the topic would be appreciated.

Well, I'm convinced. Can't argue with photographic evidence. And don't forget Nero. He certainly was black. I mean, really, how explicit can you get?

There was a documentary on Hannibal a year or two back that I was involved in. Apparently the producers received a number of complaints that Hannibal was not shown as a black man. There appears to be a conception in some parts that African = Black, which was not invariably the case in antiquity and is not invariably the case now. With Cleopatra, whilst I hate to argue by omission (especially given the size of the gaps in our knowledge), were Cleopatra's colouring different from the general line of Ptolomies I suspect someone would have said so. The lady aroused strong feelings in the 30s BC, and Plutarch, among others, gives us a detailed description. Cleo's handmaiden, just after Cleo died, made a pointed reference to her Ptolomaic heritage. Finally, we have several busts and coin samples which might at a stretch allow Semitic features, but that's about all.

And the definitive answer ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2674993/Br...n-invasion.html

My guess is Anopheles did the deed. That's the mosquito that carries malaria, and as Germanicus had been way down the Nile on a cruise before he was taken ill, he may well have been given his fatal dose there. Symptoms of malaria can first show up in some cases up to a year after infection, though a month is more common. Headache and diarrhea are early symptoms liver failure (remember those spots?) and delirium occur later - hence the foaming at the mouth. However, periods of remission are common between the cycles, all of which fits with G's symptoms. Tacitus takes a long hard look at the poisoning charge - remember this guy was a forensic lawyer when he was not writing history - and remarks that it would have been enormously hard to pull off. Also no-one gained particularly from the execution of the most popular man in the empire. He was already Tiberius' successor and Tiberius was both old and conscientious. Augustus ordered Tiberius to adopt Germanicus as his son and heir and as Tiberius made Germanicus' son his successor, it seems T. was diligent in this regard. It also means that T. stuck to the succession plans of Augustus, so anyone else killing off Germanicus to become emperor in his place was mistaken. I'd urge caution when looking for devious motives behind unexplained deaths in antiquity. Remember a burst appendix was generally fatal, as were what would today be minor infections. Add strokes, cancers - and indeed typhus - and anyone could drop unexpectedly dead without foul play being required. That's what Julius Caesar the dictator's dad did one morning as he pulled on his boots - proof that Julians were dropping dead unexpectedly long before anyone had a serious reason to expedite the process.

I'm not a Latinist either. If I recall correctly, the two inscriptions are believed to have been set up roughly at the same time. The second one seems to be even sloppier than the first, even though the lines are straighter. The upper lines are very crowded whereas there is an abundance of space at the bottom. Then there is the question of spelling differences between the two inscriptions. I don't know enough Latin to tell which one would be the original and which one the copy, but since they can't seem to be dated relative to each other, I'm not sure anyone has got that figured out yet. It seems to me that late Romans had a much more 'dynamic' or relaxed approach to grammar and spelling. Languages change over time, so that might not necessarily be a sign of a decline. I hope someone more knowledgeable can chime in though. As someone who is moderately appalling at Latin, I have been quite relieved to see that inscriptions often have a somewhat more eccentric approach to the language than the classical writers. This is not necessarily true only of the late Empire. I recall a truly appalling first century text unearthed in Spain in the 1990s and many other provincial inscriptions are of a similar calibre. When pulled up on the shortcomings of my own Latin - as happens all to frequently - I point to inscriptions such as these and announce my allegiance to the freedom and flexibility of inscriptional Latin, rather than the rigid dogma of the classicists. It is possible that the Colosseum inscriptions were done by a provincial worker as a stop-gap until a 'proper' plaque could be put in place, but this plan was superseded by events.

Brutus the Liberator was definitely a Patrician (if he existed at all) in that he was a relative of King Tarquin. However, as Nephele says, he not only killed his own sons, (for treason) but died himself within weeks. However, I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere in the context of the Aemilian family that by Roman convention, a distant member of a clan was able to adopt a noble name if the alternative was that the name would die altogether. Therefore, anyone wanting to put their necks right out could postulate that with the death of the patrician Brutus, a plebian relative - perhaps a cadet line - might have picked up the name but not the status.