Melvadius

OK I couldn't resist it; this is a story which keeps cropping up from time to time and now with the release of the latest filmic version of Rosemary Sutcliffe's perennial childrens favourite the arguments have resurfaced in the press. Heritage Key probably has the more academic version entitled 'What really happened to the Ninth Legion? [Edit although I now realise this is actually from March 2009 when the latest film was yet to start shooting]

Janet Huskinson's 'Experiencing Rome' has some information in a couple of the articles which may be useful relating to the imperial images including Augustus. Valerie Hope's article is probably especially useful although admittedly both reference Zanker's work in their bibliographies so I would agree with Klingon that this seems a very useful reference on the topic.

Happy Birthday MPC.

It gets really bad when a non-Dutch speaker has to try and translate 'Dutch' (OK they may have been Flemish) messages on a train in Belgium for everyone else as happened to us once....Mind you I would have thought everyone could translate 'machinery kaput' for themselves

They were fantastic guerilla fighters - didn't Boudica's army ambush and rout the IXth from Lincoln? And later the Silures also another legion? As I indicated above due to references in Tacitus to the number of replacements needed to be sent from Germany after the revolt the overall Roman military losses have been put at most to around 2,000 men. Even if this was only the legionary losses then it would indicate that only a vexillation of the IXth (possibly as many as half of the legion's full strength at around 2000 men) was initially sent to quell the rebellion - only the legion cavalry (probably @120 men) escaped from the ensuing rout. Again from Tacitus it appears that it was this 'relatively' small unit which suffered the majority of Roman legionary casulties. Annals Book XIV 32 & 38 (curtesy of Bill Thayers Lacus Cirtius site) Para 32 Para 38

I suppose the alternatives to street names, of which we know relatively little detail apart from some of the main routes you could try putting in some area names or possibly temples/ altars although the gods may take exception to that last. As to community chest/ chance cards think of the fun you could have eg: the emperor commands you to pay for three weeks of games, or you have been granted the position of 'Keeper of the sacred geese', or you have received an inheritance in Britannia spend four months traveling to find out what it is really worth!

The main consideration is surely your intended audience and where you are talking. If your audience is liable to include ex-members of Caesar's favoured 'Larks' then denigrating foreigners getting citizenship is liable to go down like a lead balloon. Similarly talking in the forum or within your own home while civil war is breaking out all around you with the assassins being hunted down by the mob and then the newly formed Triumvirs (including Mark Antony and Caesar's heir Octavian) would necessitate at least two different approaches. In the forum you probably would not wish to be 'tarred with the same brush' as the assassins so you would likely be pointing up only (or at least mainly) Casesar's positive attributes. In your own home - if you were certain of your guests affiliations you may be able to risk being slightly more argumentative.

No need to apologise Corax you are very welcome to the fora, although we will nbe moving this thread to join onto the main intorductions pages. BTW We all have to start somewhere and if I remember correctly it also took me some time to find the introductions page

All hail our other triumvir - many happy returns of the day

Have a great day

All Indochina related posts on this thread are currently subject to moderation.

I would remind folk that the fora on this site are primarily intended to discuss the extended history of the Roman Empire and related cultures. Further discussion of Indochina would in all probability be more usefully directed to other more specialist sites.

Having read this review I would be very careful about using Wess Roberts, Ph D's book as the ultimate authority on Attila the Hun and the possible composition of his army

I would agree with some but not all of what each of the posters above have said. Any artefact obviously has some resonance with the culture from which it arose even if that culture has passed through numerous stages between its original manufacture and the modern day. In a few instances there is a strong cultural/ religous imperative/ ancestor worship/ or even legal reasons (whatever you may wish to call it) where a present day culture believes it has a strong claim on the original artefact/ human remains. In these instances I can understand their claim and often at least understand if not totally accept the reasoning for artefacts being returned or indeed kept where they are. Against this IF there is a valid reason for an artefact to be studied such as comparison with other artefacts then this is probably best done in a modern laboratory and honestly I don't care where the reseach is undertaken as long as it is done under strict laboratory conditions be it in the 'Western' world or some remote part of the Third World. With a nod to the current unfolding Tsunami coverage from Japan I would add that I would hope any such artefact was protected as well as it could 'reasonably' be during this period of research or indeed display afterwards. BUT again considering recent events both natural and man made over the last few months I also accept that unexpected events do occur and locations which previously could have been considered safe can turn unsafe or vice-versa become 'safe'. Regarding reconstructions there is a place for these and if intended strictly for display purposes or even more accessible to the general public then there are arguments that reproductions be used wherever possible with the original object kept in reserve for research purposes or its own protection. At the end of the day if you are carrying out research on an object you may well need to be able to take it apart (at least electronically) and/or compare it with similar opbjects under the microscope while something intended for the public just to look at could more or less be in any form suitable for display. The obvious caveat is that the public do like to be able to look at things whcih obvious history so it is generally considered best to have a majority of 'original' objects available for enclosed displays. The major difficulty is that in the modern world everyone seems to only wish to see examples of 'genuine' and 'unique' artefacts not copies thus the continuing arguments about objects like the Elgin Marbles. Such artefacts very survival can be due to a series of acts which if carried out today would probably be considered 'cultural' vandalism however they may have become part of their current locations 'cultural' heritage as well as or instead of their origin. For these reasons I try not to jump up and down saying that returns can never happen or only under excessively precise circumstances. Instead I try to accept that all artefact returns need to be considered in the light of current circumstances only. If things go 'pear-shape' after a decision has been made then so be it providing the original decision was made on the basis of the best available evidence at the time. There is no reason for the decision makers to feel they necessarily made the 'wrong', 'irresponsible' or indeed in any other way what could be considered an 'unwise' decision.

I ssupect that everyone falls for some of the myths surrounding Vietnam as they are many and numerous - not simply relating to differences of interpretation but also actual selectivity in what is recorded in various sources by Marxist/ Liberal/ Nationalist/ pro- or anti-American et al writers in the late 20th/ early 21st centuries. Glancing at Wikipedia if the maps shown there are anywhere near accurate then the creation of Vietnam seems to have taken place well before the arrival of France in the mid-nineteenth century and effectively resistance to the French breaking up of the 'unified' Vietnam continuing long after their arrival and arbitrary province creation. Extensive discussion of this topic would seem however to be more appropriate for a specialist Vietnam forum than on a site mainly concerned with Roman history.

This story is actually originally got listed here arising from the Jan/ Feb 2010 edition of Archaeology magazine when it was mentioned as one of the Top Archaeological Stories in 2009 thread elsewhere on this site. However it seems to have sprung off of a Discovery Channel article in January 2009 although other media also ran with it around then. However it has recently had a resurgence appearing in (amongst others): Science 2.0 article on 14th Jan 2011 Daily Mail article on 15th January. World Science article on 16rth Janaury Plus Live Science's more extensive article 8 March 2011.

As a specialist topic it seems entirely appropriate to leave this question here, although personally I would be tempted to rename it 'Weapons in conquered provinces'. As far as providing a definitive answer that I have more difficulty with as I don't think I have anything in my library covering this specific topic. My intitial thoughts are that logically in most, if not all, of the provinces which passed into the control of the Romans there was an ongoing need for personal protection not least from wild animals or brigands when individuals were travelling in more remote areas. I believe that bears and wolves not to forget some large raptors were found all over the Empire in this period. In both Crete and Palestine (for example) there is a long tradition of shepherds having weapons to protect their flocks. For this reason I do not believe that there would have been a global ban on all weapons per se however there may have been local restrictions on where and when they were carried and what type of weapons or armour it was reasonable to bear - especially after a period of revolt.

All hail the Triumvir

Lousonna, Switzerland?

I suppose the real difficulty would be finding four suitable replacements for the railway stations of the original. Portus and Ostia are obvious but I am uncertain if the quaysides in Rome itself could really be counted as more than 'one' at most. Where does that leave you - possibly counting Brindisium as a 'Rome' port???

Personally I wonder if the gospels quote mentioned above is another case of extemoralisation on the part of the authors or at least their translators. AFAIK it was common practice for men to be drawn from several different units to form the Governors guard c/f Vindolanda Tablet 154. If the reference is actually to the Governor's personal guard then it quite easily could have had a few men from three different legions and/ or auxilliary units but be nowhere near as large a combined unit as a legion.

'And the lady wins a coconut' over to you Aurelia

Guanuaria, Please ignore the above mistranslations and sillieness curtesy of Monty Python we welcome anyone with a genuine interest in Roman History.

I suspect a mistranlation of the Monty Python in Search of the Holy Grail - the Knights who say Ni! reference