Northern Neil

happy birthday, LW. Halfway to 42!

Glad f

When we refer to classical sculpture are we talking about sculpture depicting gods, emperors and philoshophers in a standardised classical/military costume, or do we mean the depiction of the human form in a realistic manner? If we mean the former, then I suppose it died out when the related fashions died out, and when the Church banned representations of nudes and semi - nude figures. If we are referring to the realistic and proportional depiction in stone / marble etc, I dont believe it really died out. Here is a bust of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen, dated about 1250: Interestingly this fellow was literate, wrote poetry and even dabbled in scientific enquiry. By the way, welcome aboard, Coast. When you've time, fill in some of your profile and tell us a bit about yourself!

That said, he is still internationaly famous on account of this - if not instantly recognisable, and has made a fair amount of money over the decades wheeling out this story to bored tabloid journalists. In recent years McCartney and Starr released some records with Pete Best as drummer, and he received about

Nephele, did Edinburgh in Scotland feature in this? I believe there is a whole underground system of 16th/17th century streets under the modern city, which you can visit - with special arrangement.

..myself also. You are quite correct that it is far less formidable now than it used to be. The vallum as it is today has some 1800 years of accumulated topsoil and erosion, and was considerably deeper and its mounds higher than today. I have some experience of horses, and would take great care crossing the vallum even as it is today. A cavalryman - minus stirrups, remember - would have had to pick his way very carefully to cross the vallum in its second century state, still seated. A laden cart full of contraband goods, or a war chariot would have found it impossible. A look at the following drawing (Handbook to the Roman Wall: Breeze) will illustrate this very clearly; the ditch of the vallum is ten feet deep and the sides very steep, as are the flanking mounds. What we are looking at here is a second - century tank - trap, and in relative terms it would have been just as effective. A pallisade would have been totally unneccessary. The vallum appears to have been dismantled in the Antonine period, as can be seen by multiple crossings which were made round about the time the frontier was moved north to the Antonine wall - and once the frontier moved back to Hadrian's Wall, the crossings remained in place, and the Vallum allowed to fall into disuse for the remaining 220 years of the Wall's occupation. The Caledonii were not the people immediately to the North of the Wall; the Brythonic tribes Selgovii and Votadinii were, as well as a small chunk of Brigantian territory, and they appear to have followed the military tradition of using chariots and cavalry like the rest of the Britons to the south. Like Caldrail stated on an earlier post, the area even to the south was not entirely pacified in the second century, so it could be that the Vallum system formed a temporary obstacle against sudden mounted and chariot attack whilst the forts and other permanent defences were still being installed. In any case, the Votadinii were apparently pro - Roman, and there is a theory that the outpost forts North of the Wall were as much to prop up the pro - Roman leadership as to guard against incursions from the Caledonii of the far North. The Caledonii were living in a line roughly drawn from Dumbarton in the West, to Aberdeen in the North - some 120 miles North of the Wall, and remained so throughout most of the occupation.

Hadrian's wall controlled and taxed trade as well as military threats. Try taking a horse and cart over the vallum mounds and ditch. Pallisade or not, it would be impossible to scale.

I understand exactly what you mean, and often documentaries/slideshows can show an aerial view which is impossible for the average tourist. The downside is that documentaries often focus on the most visible part of a site, missing out less visible but often more interesting things. A prime example is Hadrian's Wall. The fort at Greatchesters hardly gets a mention in documentaries and only scrapes in on guidebooks simply because it is there. It also has the misfortune to be next fort along from housesteads. But a personal visit can be very rewarding, and it has a set of visible defenses which are as good as any at the other forts.

I think we need to dispense utterly with the word 'moat' when referring to Roman stuctures. A moat was a typicallly medieval feature, which whilst containing water, was actually very rare (more common in Hollywood movies). Imagine the work needed to keep water in a moat - lining it with clay, preventing leaks and marsh developing either side. Feasible with a small medieval castle, not so feasible over 80 miles of vastly undulating terrain. Medieval moated castles in England are typically rare and late period; the only examples I can think of (Bodiam and Scotney, Southern England) it apears that the moat was as much for aesthetic properties as defensive - and partly formed from a natural pond. All Roman and most medieval defensive ditches were dry and their function was to provide an obstacle to anyone trying to cross a rampart. That said, there is no reason why Longshotgene's sugestion that they performed drainage functions shouldn't at least be partially true. Whilst primarily there for defensive reasons, I have seen parts of the wall where a small drainage culvert empties directly into the defensive ditch. I can imagine a defensive ditch with a foot or so of prurient mud in the bottom to be quite a deterrent!

I wonder if this can be applied to many public and ancient buildings. I think this idea is entirely plausible - to the point that, if you were able to put this idea to a real Roman, they would possibly say it was obvious. Like a church or a town hall with a clock, I suspect that the calendar function of the building was subsidiary, not unique, and barely remarked upon when the Pantheon was built. By the second century, much astronomical mapping had already been done and the angle of the sun at midday at various times of year in central Italy was probably a matter of record. Thus, a reasonably competent architect could plan a building with these properties relatively easily. I am not dismissing this as inconsequential - far from it, I think it is fascinating indeed. But to the Romans themselves it was probably a minor curiosity and nothing more.

...who was it said 'Its funny because its true'?

Absolutely no offence taken - for 35 of my 47 years I have held this view. The Elgin marbles are part of a heritage which runs in direct continuity from the times of ancient Greece to the modern Greece of today. The Greeks have consistantly maintained their culture and language throughout the ages, they speak a language not very different from that of Aristotle, and at every social level they identify with the ancient Greece of their ancestry and no - one can dispute that the 'Elgin Marbles' are rightly owned by the Greeks. That said, the British saved the Parthenon pediment sculptures from the ravages of Athenian pollution in the 60's and 70's which all but dissolved the finer parts of many remaining Ancient Greek arts in that city. The Rosetta stone is a different matter entirely. Aside from the Copts, who have little say in the affairs of their country for obscure religious reasons, one cannot trace a direct cultural descent from ancient to modern Egypt, even though the genetic continuity is certainly there. The Egyptians from 300 AD onwards adopted various different religions, cults and systems of writing which have substantially distanced themselves from their ancient civilisation. At the heart of their modern day culture is a system of thought which, at its worst, seeks to destroy everything which it sees as alien, such as the Bamiyan Buddhas. In addition it could be said that the Rosetta Stone is a creation of the Greeks, as it seems to come from the Ptolmaic period of Egypt's history. Regarding the antiquity of Iraq, it is clear that the Iraqis are stewards of a heritage which is vastly multicultural, and the curators of the various Baghdad museums are acutely aware of this, given that the concept of Iraq is but a few decades old. It seems that before recent events unleashed a general free-for-all in that country they did a splendid, impartial job of looking after antiquities which were the property of us all. I shed genuine tears as I listened to a BBC Radio 4 programme aired in 2004, in which the curator of the Baghdad Museum, distraught, commented upon lawless looters ransacking the museum, whilst British and American soldiers looked on dispassionately. This is a complex question, with a very grey and wide central line. I am fortunate that I can merely comment upon that line, and not draw it.

I have seen several references to 'North African Romance' ( mainly on Wikipedia ). It seems it finally died out in the 17th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Romance

I am almost certain that references to this legislation crop up in Averil Cameron's 'The Later Roman Empire' and Heather's 'The Fall of the Roman Empire'. I am looking through now - however, in my websearch for such references I came across this interesting view which seems to run counter to some currently held views which were touched on earlier in this thread, and couldn't resist fuelling the debate by including it: Barbarian influence on tactics, equipment and organisation also appears to have been very limited. The longer swords used by Roman infantry soldiers from the second century AD were not a sign of changing tactics. The use of the Roman shortswords for stabbing rather than slashing has always been overemphasized in modern literature. Even the republican legionaries are explicitly described by Polybius to employ their Spanish swords for slashing as well as thrusting. The longer blades of late Roman troops were pointed and would have increased their reach in close quarter battle. The spatha was in fact not a weapon that Romans took over from Germanic barbarians, but a seperate Roman development of earlier Celtic blades. As most weapons of this type found across the borders were imports from the Roman empire it appears that the barbarians adopted a Roman weapon rather than the other way round. http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/lrarmy.html#lrarmy I must add, that a Spatha was less than a eight inches longer than a Gladius; as a former re-enactor I must say that this moderate increase in length would not have diminished its use as a stabbing weapon, but would have somewhat increased its effect as a slashing weapon. I have also seen references which suggest that the LEGIO actually maintained its internal rank structure during the Dominate, and that the reduction of legionary strength to 1'000 was merely a 'tidying up' policy in response to the situation whereby Legions had been increasingly split up into vexillations as early as the time of Trajan, never again to join their parent unit. Sometimes a legion was spread out along an entire frontier; Diocletian's policy improved and strengthened the legionary faction of the army in the face of a decline which had ALREADY taken place, rather than diminishing the effectiveness of the legion. Once more, central control of a legion was maintained in its entirety from a single point. Regarding the original subject of this thread, the problem was not, I think, reliance on individual generals - this had been going on at various times for centuries - but rather, the reliance on the 'Wrong Kind' of generals. The law I alluded to in a previous post augmented this situation, and as I type I am leafing through my books looking for a reference to it.

Wasn't there a piece of legislation, about this time, which prevented men of senatorial rank from assuming officerships in the army? I've forgotten exactly when it was passed, but i know it was mid to late 4th century. Possibly drawn up to prevent usurpation, it resulted in an army in which the Roman ruling classes now had no direct involvement.

Is this in any way different to acknowledging Jupiter as the supreme god, but sending an occasional prayer to Ceres to ensure a bumper crop, or a prayer to Venus to capture someone's heart? Apart from the difference in names, I really do not see any contextual difference at all. Which is exactly what I thought when I started this thread. Maybe I should have named the thread 'Was the rise of monotheism inevitable? Regarding Constantinus, I believe he was named as 'The Great' by the Church, in deference to his patronage of the Christian religion. Looking at his career dispassionately, he was as ruthless as any Nero or Caligula, and quite clearly adopted Christianity (or rather, the particularly authoritarian version of it) in order to unify the state. Without the Church to this day holding him in such esteem, I suspect that history would regard him in a similar way to other ruthless and (arguably) effective reformers such as Severus and Diocletian. He remains 'The Great' rather than 'St. Constantine' on account of his monstrous behaviour, which includes boiling his mother to death and murdering his son.

To be fair, in 2000 they actually didnt, and in 2004 he got in by the narrowest of margins. If not for the opponents he faced (Al "I invented the internet and nature itself" Gore, and John "Lurch" Kerry) he probably wouldn't have won either election (dependent entirely of course on one's definition of "won"). It's the sad state of affairs in politics that the best we've had to offer in the last 8 years and 3 elections is George "if you would care to recall I was actually quite popular for about a month or so" Bush twice, his two previously mentioned opponents above, John "I'm damned old and it's my damned turn to scare you" McCain, Sarah "could I be any more of a nitwit" Palin, Barack "H is for holy shit he's actually less experienced than the Alaskan clown" Obama and Joe "I've been in office doing nothing except living off the American taxpayer for about 6 decades" Biden. Alas. Are you not very optimistic about your new president, then? We're pretty impressed with him this side of the pond.

To be fair, in 2000 they actually didnt, and in 2004 he got in by the narrowest of margins.

Ha Ha Ha! yes - also, 'Save me an easter egg, mum - I'll be home on Monday!' The fancy dress company 'Karnival Kostumes - Court of Rome' seems to have many enviable items on offer. (Actually, I quite like the Graecian Goddess...) http://www.karnival-house.co.uk/acatalog/Court_of_Rome.html

So in that sense, is the American President ( Whomever he/she may be) merely a constitutional figurehead like our queen, or does the office have real power?

Yep - thats pretty good! I like the outfit, too.. I expect we will be seeing it remodelled, in black, upon your good self? Ok... This is from AD 33, so I suppose it counts!

What about this fine, authentic porcelain figure of a Roman Legionary? for those interested in buying, here is the link: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/EARLY-DERBY-FIGURE-O...A1%7C240%3A1318

I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy.

At times discussions here can get a bit uptight, frought and mildly po-faced. Ok, narrow that down then - I can! That applies mainly to me over the last few days - so in atonement I open up this cheerful thread in which we can share with hilarity some of the wonderful and strange items marketed as Roman. Ebay of course is an amazing resource with its ready supply of pics, so here we go. This is a wonderful costume described as 'fancy dress Gladiator / Julius caesar'. As you can see, it is loveingly made from quality linen, rare purple silk and modelled by someone who could be Caesars twin! I was thinking of buying it for MPC's birthday...

I would have thought that in ancient times and up to the point when modern governments abandoned the gold standard, the 'price of gold/silver' was impossible to asses. That would be like saying 'What is the price of a dollar? the answer - a dollar'. Maybe there is documentary source which gives an idea of prices in the pre hellenistic and hellenistic periods, then a more definitive statement can be made.