Northern Neil

I can think of a few other Roman Military projects which appeared to be wasteful of resources. Towards the end of the Roman occupation of Britain - and thus nearer the 'fall', the Saxon Shore defenses display a piecemeal approach to planning rather than organised and efficient design. Stone forts such as Caister appear to have been built and abandoned in favour of better placed sites within a period which cannot have been more than a couple of years - given that these forts were among the earliest in the sequence, being built in 'traditional' style and having external towers added half way through the construction. Going back to Flavian times, Legionary fortresses such as Inchtuthill (Scotland) are occupied so fleetingly that they are still being built as they are decomissioned. Back to Hadrian's Wall, Milecastles - defended gates through the frontier - are built rigidly every Roman mile, even where there is a precipitous drop of 150 feet, thus rendering the milecastle superfluous. And these examples are just in Britain! So, it does follow that the Roman military was at times very wasteful of resources and inefficient in its planning. Wether or not this can be included as one of the many reasons for the Western Empire's fall I would not like to say.

David Breeze, in his recent edition of Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall offers the following: 'Its purpose is best explained as a means of defining the limit of the military zone; in effect, it was the second century equivalent of barbed wire...Its construction may have been a response to resentment at the building of the Wall... a recent proposal is that it was an extra obstacle to frustrate the activities of mounted raiders'. The VALLUM is certainly a puzzling structure, and in places it deliberately avoids military structures already in place, which at the time of building were not regarded as part of the Wall system. In the Antonine period it was effectively decomissioned as multiple causeways were built across it. At the same time the Wall system was decomissioned and left with a skeleton staff as the entire frontier and garrisons were moved bodily 100 miles north to the Antonine Wall. There are many examples of poor planning and needless expenditure with Hadrian's Wall. First it was built from turf, then shortly afterwards they decided to rebuild the entire thing in stone. In the centre sector of the Wall, the width of the curtain is reduced from 8 feet to 6 feet - obviously as a means of economising - and there is a curious section running for several miles where the narrow wall is built on a foundation made to take a broader wall. Originally the Wall just consisted of Milecastles and turrets, with forts already built housing the garrison slightly to the south. At some stage a decision was made to move the forts onto the line of the Wall itself, in some places demolishing newly built milecastles and turrets already in place. When the Antonine Wall was abandoned and the Wall re occupied, Severus repaired 50 years of neglect, and made further alterations. 2/3rds of the signalling turrets - about 100 of the total of 160 - were demolished as they were superfluous and expensive to run. So, certainly with Hadrian's Wall, there was a series of planning cock - ups, U-turns and changes of policy, which must have resulted in twice the amount of money and manpower expended than was neccessary.

Of course - but what we are discussing (and in my case getting overheated about!) is the artificial interference with that process, and a small minority imposing their values on the majority, misusing their position and influence to do so.

...about a great deal in todays America. I suspect that, like me, there are a few 'free thinkers' giving vent here on this thread, and luckily for me, to be in such a position is almost the norm in the UK, and certainly no one raises any eyebrows. I heard the tirade given by a republican polititian to a democrat a while back. What saddened me was not that the Republican lady was accusing the Democrat of atheism, but that the other woman had to go against all her principles and say 'No I'm not' in order to stay in the political race. A British polititian would have been able to say, with full confidense: 'Yep. On with the debate...' Going back to Obama's stance on funding faith - based organisations, maybe this is tax dollars well spent. After all, he does also state that there should be a complete dissociation of faith from politics and the running of a country. I for one would be quite happy for a few pence of my tax each year funding a muslim organisation, if it stops the slow but sure adoption of Sharia law onto our statute books.

I followed this election very closely, as I do elections in Britain, and the one thing that to me stands out is the commitment of the American people to vote, and to contribute to their democracy. Here in Britain about 40% of the electorate turn out to vote... if they can be bothered. Whilst I am glad that Obama was elected, I take DDickey's point that he never says much on policy. Could this be to hide a lack ofpolicies, or to hide radical policies which would have mobilised conservatives against him? Time will tell. I must say, I believe that the selection of Palin as running mate nailed the coffin for McCain - Americans I have spoken to say they are insulted by his assumption that this crass appeal for the popular vote would sway them. That said, I think she looks absolutely scrumptious...

I completely agree with you. Nonetheless, attempts to influence language in this way are still infuriating!

Hmm.. todays world is far from free of people who are devoted to and swayed by things others would say are clearly ridiculous. Freud said that dreams were the 'Royal road to the subconscious'. If these objects and gods were associated in the conscious mind with the things the Romans believed they represented in dreams, then maybe it was not as ridiculous as it first seems that the dream could influence future events. Dreaming of a donkey, for example, might have encouraged individuals to take a safe rather than a risky travel route, thus arriving at a distant destination safely, and 'fulfilling' the prophesy. I wonder if Romans ever dreamt about walking through the forum dressed only in their underwear...

Not as lucky as one might think. The French and Spanish are reacting against the recent introduction of foreign words into their language. The kind of people who are hoping to strip latin from everyday usage in English are trying to deprive us of something which has been present in English at least from the time of Dr. Johnson, probably earlier. And those individuals are, at the same time, quite happy to see 'street' talk which is an amalgamation of recent immigrant words and traditional English slang, given official recognition in our language. Coming as I do from a traditional working class background, I feel sickened that once again this relatively small band of middle class liberal do-gooders is meddling in something it shouldn't for the sake of us uneducated morons (as they obviously see us), who are obviously too thick to understand anything except football, popular culture and words of more than one syllable.

I agree - this would be over three kilos weight in gold.

Yes - a belated Happy Birthday from Brigantia. TTFN!

As late as 360 Ammianus Marcellinus writes of Julian's campaigns againt the Allemanni and Persians, and the armies he describes are made up of Gauls, Raetians and Pannonians, Roman citizens in every sense. Later still Generals such as Valentinian and Theodosius (who would later become emperors) are conducting campaigns against barbarians and strengthening frontiers. I think what happened in the 5th century was that the central government, suddenly strapped for cash, found that as a short term measure it was easier to employ ready made military units in the form of German and Alan warbands, to deal with immediate emergencies and pay them wiith promises of land grants, rather than to pay a standing army with diminishing tax revenues. Even then, Generals such as Stilicho and Aetius - regarded by us as 'Romano German' but considering themselves Roman generals - maintained the tradition into the 450's. After this of course we see characters such as Ricimer and Odoacer, barbarians through and through, taking entire control of imperial forces. So really, I think it was economics that killed off the Roman military tradition - in difficult times it was cheaper in the short term to employ barbarians, but the cost was giving up large swathes of land in return, thus diminishing the tax base, and allowing the problem to snowball. Peter Heather (Fall of the Roman Empire) regards this as a fairly rapid and sudden process, rather than a long and protracted decline. Certainly, Ammianus' description of the late 4th century army seems to bring to mind an army just as efficient and 'Roman' as any which had proceeded it. However, even at this time we see 'proper' Romans such as Boniface leading campaigns against Rome's enemies, with some measure of success, although this was marred by quarrels with Aetius which further impeded the ability of Roman forces to combat the common enemy. Three generations later, of course, the great Roman general Belisarius reconquers Italy for the Empire, but many regard this as the start of a different tradition rather than the continuity of Roman military might, for Rome may have been reconquered, but now it was an outpost, not an imperial capital.

This is amazing - I must have been asleep or on holiday when this gem of Wotwotius' came onto the board, as I totally missed it! I would like to add my 'two pennorth' if I may, although like Kosmo it is an opinion as I do not have the academic equipment ( educationally or intellectually!) to substantiate it. Many cultures use language to confirm their genetic descent from an ancient group, especially when it is politically expedient for them to do so. Whilst in the case of Italians, for example, this may largely apply, it doesnt work so well with other groups. A few examples: AFRICAN AMERICANS, from a non indo european background, but speaking almost exclusively a germanic language. Whilst the reason for this is clear and recent, the case of the ENGLISH isnt - Oppenheimer has demonstrated that only 5% of English genes came over here in the Anglo Saxon invasions. Yet this tiny influx of raiders imposed its language and culture over almost the whole of Britain. The FINNS resemble other Northern Germanics morphologically, yet they speak a language which evolved in central Siberia. They are just as puzzled about this as the rest of us! And wether the TURKS like it or not, their central Asian genetic heritage is all but gone although their language hasn't; genetically and morphologically they are now almost indistinguishable from the Greeks. Most ARABS are only that linguistically - apart from the Arabians themselves, most of them belonged to other cultures before the language was imposed artificially on them by a combination of religion and conquest.* Except perhaps in Argentina, South Americans have a native American heritage that outweighs the Spanish input - yet in Spanish America, one had to speak Spanish (or Portuguese) in order to get anywhere. Oppenheimer states in Origins of the British that languages move over people like waves, whilst people themselves tend to stay put a little more than has been assumed. His general point in his book is that genetic evidence is a more accurate way of determining a people's origins than language, which can be imposed on a majority by a minority. But then, a Romanian could argue that it is the linguistic and cultural element which is most important, not neccessarily the genetic factor, and that placing too much emphasis on genetic evidence ( due no doubt to very recent groundbreaking studies) is yet another example of views on history being coloured by events in contemporary life. *Just as a footnote, 'North African Romance' remained a living language in isolated parts of the Mahgreb until the 18th century. Unfortunately nothing of it, written or spoken, now survives.

Well, to be fair, from my point of view it had its good bits. The computer models of Roman buildings were in my view excellent. But yes, I would not try to make too much sense of the plot historically - or geographically. I do not believe that taiga forest extends as far south as the danube, for example. 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'.

Republicans??

I dont think he was, I think he was just the inspiration for Russel Crowe's character.

I think he actually said 'Anyone been in the Army?' so they wouldn't have neccessarily served under him, given that at this time Rome had some thirty legions and Maximus commanded four. Criminals were often sentenced to die in the arena; also, some citizens voluntarily fought in the arena to earn an income, so there could be a number of reasons why ex-soldiers were with maximus in that scene. But as you say, it is only a movie.

Another consideration is that the average legionary came from the lower classes, even though he was a citizen. Therefore, instances of wanting to leave were probably very rare indeed - they were well fed, well housed (when in camp) and had access to medical care and bathing facilities most plebs could only dream of. Indications are that the life expectancy of a legionary, even taking into account battles, was significantly higher than that of an ordinary citizen. A camp prefect serving at Deva (chester) lived into his seventies according to his tombstone, and died in harness. So he liked it that much, he must have signed up for a second or even third term!

True enough, they carry LOTS of fleas! Some gardeners value them, because they eat snails and slugs etc. At one time in England people used to bake them in clay and eat them. Generally, they are regarded with affection in England and turn up a lot in children's literature. It is indeed a quaint and surprising thing that there is a preservation society, but then, they are in danger of extinction in some areas. Looking at the pic of this find, I must agree with LW - it looks very much like a guineapig, or even one of those big south American rodents rather than a hedgehog, and I wonder how the archeologists came to the conclusion that it definitely was a hedgehog.

Happy birthday from an insomniac!!

The thought occurs that more often than not, Roman buildings are ruinous and tend to stand little more than shoulder height. Buildings taller than his have long since lost their stucco and limewashing. If streets in towns did have names then they may have been written high up on buildings at junctions, much as today.

Populist treatment of our subject is inevitable I'm afraid, and I suppose the reporting of this with reference to Crowe's character in Gladiator was inevitable. In a similar fashion, one can expect a 'gee-whizz' reporting of new discoveries in astronomy/physics, an inevitable reference to dinosaurs vis-a-vis anthropological finds and so on. But as I always say with respect to stuff like this, if it inspires just one person to come 'on board' then it could be seen as a good thing.

Rock - art in the Tibesti and Ahaggar mountain ranges shows people hunting animals such as giraffes and gazelle which are used to a far wetter climate than the present day sahara. I suppose these ranges would have had considerable anmounts of snowfall in times of glaciation further north, so the meltwater had to go somewhere. Given the topography of the proposed ancient rivers, the theory makes sense.

Indeed - Here in old blighty we feel sorry for our hedgehogs and take them very seriously, as many of them sadly end up squashed on our roads. We even build 'hedgehog tunnels' under busy highways to prevent this, and 'Hedgehog ladders' in cattlegrids so they can avoid getting trapped.

What about our alphabet? Despite the addition of a lower case and one or two new characters, it is the one the Romans gave us, and is now used by more than half the world.

... and I can see what those reasons are. Nothing in this film actually surprises me, and any individual who has had a '