Northern Neil

I read somewhere - and as usual I have forgotten where - that germanic laguages may have been spoken in late Roman times in most of the military zones of the Island because of the large numbers of Germanic auxilliaries. The view that the indigenous people of Britain stayed put and simply adopted Anglo Saxon is now more or less mainstream - the only people in Britain who followed the Germanic 'Morphological' type ( Tall, blonde etc) reside in Essex and the south east.* Where you would expect them. But then, are they descended from the Belgae, who also had this appearance, but spoke Celtic? The differences between the Irish and the English/protestant Irish are thankfully mostly resolved, and to be fair, even the staunchest Irish republicans state that they have no quarrel with the ordinary English people. Again, Bosnia and Serbia - the only difference there is religion, and as in Ireland you cannot tell the people apart by just looking at them. They are the same slavs who descended into the Balkans in the sixth century. *This applies to the earlier 20th century - as in most places, widespread long distance travel in recent years has made this far harder to establish using present day populations as a sample.

I havent!

My favourite is a little known book called 'The Bridge of Sand'. The story is narrated by a young cavalry ALA commander called Juvenal. Wether or not he is meant to be the poet is unceratain: Anyway, Agricola is told of a 'bridge of sand' to be found in the west of britain, which is said to connect Britain with Ireland if weather and tidal conditions are right. Agricola dispatches Juvenal, his ALA and a vexillation of legionaries to find this bridge, with a view to conquering Ireland. I won't tell you what happens because it will spoil it should you order it from Amazon, where it is still available (author, John James) but it is quite a mysterious book and at certain points Juvenal and his little command encounter frightening situations whilst cut off from the main Roman army and the civilised portion of Britain. At such times, James' description of harrassment from British tribes in tandem with awful weather and descriptions of windswept British vistas truly puts a shiver up ones spine!

This is a very good point - the same could be said about his head on the coinage.

1) Your initial post framed a question - the second post on this thread was put by me in an attempt to answer that question, and it is actually my views which have been under discussion. Some people have agreed with them, some have not, that is the nature of a healthy debate. 2) This discussion is not about Augustus. 3) When I said 1'200 years, it was in answer to your point that Queen Elizabeth II was equally narcissistic. I pointed out that the English monarchy had been putting their faces on coins for 1'200 years. Prior to that England wasn't a united country. 4) W.G.Bush was given only as an example; the question pondered was what if he did some of the things Caesar did? And there was no suggestion that he actually would do these things. 5) Whether or not George Bush Senior is narcissistic is utterly beside the point. But I bet he didn't approach the government and ask for the carrier to be named after him. No one historical figure can be compared precisely to another; that would mean a tremendous set of coincidences, for one thing. The point about Napoleon was that he did similar things to Caesar, and fell from glory as a consequence. And like Caesar, he also did many laudible things.

For the purposes of this discussion, George Bush is a perfect example, as he is the best currently known leader of a democracy which is also a republic, which is the only reason I named him - but ok, lets pick any other leader of a republican democracy in modern times. What if Chirac of France put his picture on coins, annexed Spain and called himself Emperor? Hold on - didn't Napoleon in fact do that, 200 years ago? Look what happened to him! Not only that, but he initiated a period of political instability in France which lasted for 65 years! Yes, the kings and queens of Europe are on their coins. Like I said before, they are upholding a tradition which is over 1'000 years old - they didnt decide to do it last week. And as you say yourself, they are kings and queens. Anathema to the Roman people.

I am aghast by this analysis! The 'So what ' in your comment totally disregards the massively unprecedented move Caesar made here. It had everything to do with Narcissism, and everything to do with the disdain for traditional Roman practices that led to his murder. By your own words you have highlighted one of the things which proves Caesar's narcissism: - The image of Queen Elizabeth on the coinage of Britain and its Commonwealth is directly related to kingship of the type inherited from the mediaeval period and beyond. From the time of the Barbarian successor kingdoms. The kind of kingship, indeed, with which the Etruscans governed, and exactly the kind of kingship Rome despised. And in any case, unlike Caesar, Queen Elizabeth did not set the precedent - an ancestor of hers 1'200 years ago did. In maintaining the status quo, she is actually more akin to the conservative republians Caesar did so much to upset. In 2'000 years people may well applaud a George Bush who Caezes the senate with the national guard, puts his face on coins and leads America to double its size by annexing Mexico and Canada. But how would we view him now? Would the American people allow him to remain as dictator? I think not!

300 Spartans. The bit where the Persians offer to spare the lives of the remaining Spartans if they will give up the body of Leonidas. They say 'we stay with our king'. The bit where the Thespian general refuses to leave them is pretty throat - tightening too.

I am told his birth was by Caesarian section. Presumably, a forceps delivery would have been tried to no avail. Anoxia and pressure on the brain prior to being delivered by section may have contributed to a mild degree of damage to the cerebral cortex. This in turn may have caused his epilepsy, and also the rigid mindset we have been disussing on this thread.

I am absolutely cool about that! The results however would be far from scientific in my case, as a substantial number of ideas I pose on this forum are not neccessarily views held by me, but intended to fuel debate and perhaps give an opposing point of view when one is needed. Other comments I make are intended to be humerous, and often I poke fun at myself. Fire away! My armour is impenetrable. :tank: With MPC I fear the results would be uninteresting. As far as I am aware he has never murdered anyone, and his comments are in the main intended to provide a logical or balanced view of a given subject backed up by evidence, in which he finds mere speculation pointless.

My, my - It appears I am now a Primus Pilus! With an entire Milliary cohort behind me! Cato now has the support of 960 prime legionaries. Not to mention the support of the entire 15mm scale city of HOMVNCVLVM, West Brigantia ( of which, if you didn't already know, I am the Guv'nor).

For the umpteenth time, no one has said that Caesar was mentally unstable[/i ...Indeed. Strictly speaking, Personality disorders are not even mental illnesses - they are patterns of behaviour and personality traits which are (very) extreme forms of those displayed by us all. They require defining however because their consequences can be disastrous for the individuals concerned, or society in general. They are also useful definitions, as sufferers do tend to fall into the categories as outlined by the DSM-IV. To say that someone had one of these disorders does not mean we are demeaning their place in history, and no - one is saying Caesar was a 'bad man' because he may have had one. A more in depth reading of Caesars life than a coffee table book on his campaigns should be enough to tell anyone that he was comparable to Hitler, Stalin and Bonaparte. And that is before the subject of personality disorders even raises itself. I think Caesar fans are missing the point here, as we keep going round in circles trying to point this out. The personality disorder thing is incidental, the possibility of him having one being raised merely to explain things which are already a matter of record. Caesar did march against his own country, was instrumental in bringing down a centuries old republic, did wage war illegally and was responsible for the deaths of many Romans in the civil war he initiated. Now, in order to asses how 'good' he was, let us balance that with the following: He was a good orator. He wrote good books. He was a good general. He expanded the Roman World. I can see why he was murdered.

This topic has not been started 'flippantly' - something The Augusta said in a discussion about the personality of Caesar made me start this topic. Here is the quote: (quote - The Augusta)For years I have defended Tiberius because 'I understand him psychologically'. I have often felt somehow sorry for Tiberius, although that is probably in the main due to his depiction in the BBC drama 'I Claudius'. I read somewhere (I have forgotten exactly where as usual) that Tiberius was actually quite a good and benevolent ruler, and that Seutonius' account of him cannot be trusted. How true is this?

This drew a tiiter from me, as it has its modern day equivelent: the homes of previously impoverished lottery winners and premiership footballers. Prior to Caracalla, I suppose freedmen could join the Auxilia and become citizens that way. After Caracalla, their citizenship came in tandem with their new free status.

My mum and dad were (and still are) keen members of the local archaeological society and used to take me to archaeological digs and sites. To 'put flesh' on what I saw, I read the novels of Rosemary Sutcliffe, and the reconstruction books of Ronal Embleton and Peter Connolly.

Regarding Britain, this general summary is true - however, I believe York deserves a mention, as it was quite a large town, and an outpost of true Roman - ness in the North of the province. It was base to one of the three legions. Severus and Constantius died there, and Constantine spent time there.

I must point out here that Caesar has not been 'accused' of anything in this discussion, and there has been no moral judgement as to wether he was a good or a bad man. Indeed, he wrote entertaining books that can still be read today. He arguably enabled the spread of Roman culture to the extent that I can step out of my door, drive for half an hour and enjoy some of it first hand. I know, or have known several individuals with personality disorders, and I would hesitate to accuse them of anything, or make any moral judgement. The fact is, Caesar, by his actions, his own words and the words of others, seems to correspond broadly to the definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as outlined by DSM -IV. A question was asked, and I answered it using knowledge acquired during my studies in psychology, and my mental health training. It is true that personality disorder is a continuum, on which we can all be placed, a little like the Autistic Spectrum. If one plots this on a graph shaped like a wedge, most people are at the thin end of it, whereas I am sure Caesar would be at the thick end.

I feel a little uneasy about the link given at the start of this thread, and about metal detecting for personal gain full stop. Although the organisation based in Colchester may well be conscientious, and work in concert with archaeologists, I have had personl experience of metal detectorists ruining archaeological sites in my area. My personal view is that metal detectors and ancient sites ought not to really go together because an element of greed, to the detriment of the rest of us, always seems to creep in. Stuff that should go in museums ought not, in my view, end up in private collections, given that this material is finite in nature.

Prior to Heraclius' reign the language of government was latin, the army was organised on the late Roman model, some classical cities still prospered in Greece and Asia minor and geographically, the 'shape' of the Empire - at least in the East - was much the same as in Augustus' day, with imperial frontiers roughly corresponding to those in the days of the principate. Persia remained the principal enemy and rival, as of old. Heraclius totally overhauled the administration of the Empire, making Greek its official language of government. The Arab invasions saw the permanent loss of many provinces, some of which had been Roman since republican days. The last classical cities such as Ephesus finally saw their theatres become empty and derelict and public baths became agricultural buildings. As John Julius Norwich states (A Short History of Byzantium): Culturally, too, this marked the beginning of a new era. If Justinian had been the last of the truly Roman emperors, it was Heraclius who dealt the Roman tradition its death blow for it was he who decreed that Greek, long the language of the people and the Church, should henceforth be the official language of the Empire, simultaneously abolishing the ancient Roman titles of Imperial dignity. Like his predecessors he had been hailed as Imperator, Caesar and Augustus; all these were now replaced by the old Greek word for king, 'Basileus'.

I suppose Heraclius. The Roman Empire of course carried on henceforth in a different cultural phase, but I believe Heraclius was the last emperor to govern a recognisably Roman state.

For me it is the buildings. I didn't really know which category to put this in, so I chose 'A little bit of everything', as buildings served many purposes.

My thoughts entirely. One may deduce quite correctly that an historical figure was jaundiced, because his skin was said to have turned yellow. Whether or not he had pancreatic cancer or an inflamed gall bladder, however, is the element which is uncertain. Mental illness is open to exactly the same kind of scrutiny; Caesar's antics may have had a delusional element, in which case he may have been schizophrenic, or ( my guess) down to personal self - aggrandisement based on a desire to have power, and be venerated. Mental health diagnosis is far from subjective, as it is required to undergo the same scientific process as any other discipline. As to wether or not this discussion is fruitless and pointless, that may well be the opinion of some. But if even one person on this forum finds it interesting to debate, then it is far from a useless exercise. We are all here to pool our knowledge and answer questions, and to me a mental health worker offering an insight into the personality of an ancient figure is no different to a builder offering an opinion on how hypocausts were constructed. Getting back to Caesar, his actions were largely responsible for wrecking a stable system of government 500 years in existance, and that to me renders his personality as fertile ground for a good, fun debate!

I agree with MPC that many of Caesar's antics were in opposition to some Roman conventions, and I am sure that aspects of his behaviour were deemed outrageous by many. I expect he was seen as being mentally unstable by some. I do not believe, however, that to become a great leader a degree of mental instability is neccesary, to answer Mosquito's earlier question. Take Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill, for example. Pertinax would probably have been a similar figure given the chance.

By Gum, as they say in Brigantia. Bon annee, as my Gallic ancestors say!