Northern Neil

Dear me... I have just got home from the pub, and found this very fertile topic before my drunken eyes and it appears I am the first to stumble upon it. It is my honour Mosquito, and your English is far better than my Polish, or even the French I claim to speak with a degree of fluency. No matter. What drew me to this topic is, I am a psychiatric nurse by profession, and I have often thought that Caesar showed many characteristics of a person with a personality disorder (in other words, psychopath), of the Narcissistic type. In my experience, such people (ancient AND modern) are often highly intelligent, attractive, highly motivated and have great charisma. They also have great faith in their own abilities, enjoy being the centre of attention, are good at criticising but are unable to accept criticism, and are very good at 'holding court' to an audience. They broadcast their own successes, but are oblivious to the fact that their successes are due to the contribution or sacrifice of other individuals. They also exaggerate their abilities, but are careful to make these exaggerations plausable, and in keeping with their background and history. They are drawn to the mystic and paranormal, and often ascribe ordinary events - for example, the flight of birds such as swallows and owls - as having particular significance to themselves. They are unable to form stable relationships. They often blame the failings of their loved ones on psychological problems, or 'problems of the mind', yet themselves display the characteristics of which they make complaint. In the case of Caligula, who made his horse consul, they may even give greater regard to animals or 'pets' than to fellow humans - although, in Caligula's case, we may be looking at a psychotic, rather than an individual with a personality disorder. They may claim they have divine, or 'psychic' status. People who know them at a superficial level find them entertaining, interesting and the 'life and soul of the party', and are quite willing to accept criticism from such people when aimed at themselves and others, in the belief that these people must be right, because their self confidense dictates it. People who know them intimately find them domineering, bullying, emotionally cold and exploitative. These people show a ruthless side to their character, in that they will extract great tribute from a subordinate person (such as Vecingetorix,) and allow them to aid their cause directly or indirectly, often at great financial and material expense to themselves. The victims always believe that the more they give, the less they will be oppressed. This never works, however. Eventually, the oppressor always finds an excuse to destroy her/his enemy, whilst gaining immensely in terms of territory or property, and then claim that it was the fault of the 'enemy' in the first place. Then, they move on to more fertile territory. Historically, of course, such people often end up being murdered in forums, their personalities exposed. Happily, in modern life, often their histories catch up with them, and they themselves may eventually seek therapy for their continuing tendency to cause hurt and distress. Often, these things may have been brought to their attention several times, but their lack of ability to criticise themselves and their actions may have led them to believe that references to their own behaviour were aimed at others.

This is not entirely true. The late period legion formed up thus: First two ranks, heavy infantry. Next five ranks: Medium to lightly armoured troops. Eighth rank: Heavy infantry, to 'maintain the morale' of the five ranks of lighter armed troops. Behind the eight ranks of infantry were assorted archers and slingers to provide a covering barrage. The heavy infantry componant of the formation wore mail shirts, sometimes with long sleeves, large oval shields and ridge helmets. Sometimes they had a cache of lead weighted darts kept in a hollow behind the shield. Thus, it can be seen that the late period heavy infantry was just as well equipped as the trajanic legionary, albeit differently. The quality of the army of course took a dip after 400, due to many factors we are all aware of, and declined with the fortunes of the Western Empire. However, my point here is that the late period army as emerged at the time of Diocletian was every bit as efficient as the imperial period army, even though its make up was different. As I have stated a few times on various posts, I believe that the concept of an inferior dominate period army has more to do with modern commentators' love of the old legions, rather than reality.

I used to have an excellent book called 'Arena', and it was, of course, the story of Roman entertainment, in particular the amphitheatres. The author's name eludes me, as I unfortunately lent this book out some years ago (like many others!) and havent got it back. Anyway, the writer here makes an interesting point. According to him, animals such as lions and leopards were quite common in mountainous areas of Greece, Sicily and Spain, and also Egypt. It was the need for animals in the arena that rendered them extinct north of the Sahara.

'Better to live an hour as a tiger, than a lifetime as a worm' - Cat, Red Dwarf. 'Whoever saw a wormskin rug?' - Rimmer, Red Dwarf

Wilco, Octavius. Here goes... http://earth.google.com/

The problem is, 'Sticking with what worked in the past' was precisely what was responsible for the massive third century defeats in the first place. Whole swathes of territory were lost, as the old legions consistantly lost their battles against a more mobile foe.The army wasn't just changed on the whim of Constantine, it underwent many changes from about 240 AD up to 320 AD, in order to meet continuing threats and developments from Persia and the Germans, which the old legions were unable to meet. The old army was too inflexible and tied to its frontiers to field an effective, mobile army which was capable of chasing raiding parties deep into imperial territory. The practice of reducing legion strength from 5'000 to 1'000 simply confirmed a trend which had started with Trajan, whereby vexillations were moved from a quiet sector to a risky one, and often found themselves in permanent residence there. The administration of a legion spread out along a 1'000 mile frontier was unmanagable, which is why the Illyrian emperors of the late 3rd century compacted them into more manageable units. By the time Constantine came along, most of these changes had already taken place. Unfortunately, in my view a legion of 150 AD would not fare very well against a field army of 400AD. The later army would use precisely the same techniques as used against the old legions in the third century, and with the same result. What I have written is not solely my opinion; many of these things are a matter of record, in some instances borne out by soures from the time. Those field armies came along in the first place to meet a threat the legions were incapable of dealing with. We all love them dearly, but the truth is by the third century the old legions had outlived their usefulness.

Lucius, there are some good images of late Roman troops in the GALLERY section of this website, in Decimus' 'Miscellany' album. Enjoy! Often the Imperial period army is compared to the later army, and most people seem to agree that the earlier army was better in many ways. Unfortunately, the evidence does not support this - in the third century a series of reforms changed the nature of the army because it had suffered repeated setbacks at the hands of the Persians and Goths. It had failed to change in over 300 years, and an army adept at defeating other mediterranean infantry was no longer required. As early as the Augustan Vorenus debacle, the legions had shown their weaknesses when forced to fight the kind of battle for which they were not trained. The new model army may not have looked as pretty, or have had short haircuts and lorica segmentata, but they far better at meeting the barbarian threat than the earlier army. A modern analogy would be the defeat of the British army in ( Red coats, iron discipline, marching in lines and files ) at the hand of the Boers ( Irregular troops, khaki clad, guerilla warfare) in 1903. Shortly after this, the army remodelled itself to meet modern threats. Would anyone now say that the British 'Imperial Period' army was superior to the modern day one? Just as a footnote: David Potter (The Roman Empire at Bay, 180 - 395 ) states that the empire of the 4th century wasn't much bigger than the pre-crisis army.

The Google Earth thing is really great, and it does indeed show the colloseum perfectly - and several other places of interest. Turn to the 'gallery' section of this forum, flick back to page 4 of the Roman section, for some interesting results I obtained a few months back. To me the most interesting views are of Italian towns where the amphitheatres have been totally covered by later buildings, but still retain their plans - such as the arena at Lucca, and the Piazza Navona in Rome. The little known amphitheatre at Pozzuoli (Napoli) is particularly staggering in its beauty. Problem is, it has 'high res' areas, and 'low res' ones. Hadrian Wall is in a low res area, apart from its eastern end. Again, the mighty arena at Verona shows up just as a tantalising eliptical blur. EDIT: Following the entry of an image of the theatre at Amman, it is now on page one.

Many thanks to Nephele and Octavius! As its bed time here in old Blighty, I'm off up the wooden hill now. Nephele, funny you should mention le crayon noir, as I do have French ancestry! Octavius, the French version of Rockers, or Hell's Angels, are called 'Les Blousons Noir.' I will be glad to have my hidden Roman name revealed tommorrow! Many thanks. TTFN!

Foctor 4, loss of a critical ally, could apply to the division of the Empire, and that the East from 395 started to follow its own destiny, involving itself less in the affairs of the West as time went by. This was definitely the case in the 5th century, when Constantinople was implicit in encouraging barbarians to invade the West. I have got this book, and by largely skipping over the demise of the Western Roman Empire, by omission he supports recent revisionists who argue that Rome 'evolved' rather than 'fell'. He also fails to mention the demise of Persia in the 7th century. I think that, in the case of Rome and Persia, his omission is twofold; 1) Rome and Persia did not suffer total collapse; East Rome survived, , and the Persian Empire simply became incorporated into a greater entity. 2) The societies Diamond describes underwent a total and utter extinction which must have appeared apocalyptic to the people at the time. This did not happen to either Persia or Rome; in the West, the people remained, as modern romance languages prove, and their religion and certain aspects of law survived. The Roman provincials of Spain and Gaul did not suffer total extinction; they just got taken over by different political entities, who then proved inadequate to maintain the status quo. Yes, within a few generations the population drastically fell, the economy plummeted, and living standards fell, but the people of the west, to this day, have never lost sight of their Roman heritage. The Greenland Vikings, the Pitcairn and Henderson Islanders and the Anasazi, on the other hand, became extinct.

Interestingly, this criterion would exclude some of the cultures of Mesoamerica and Peru, as their cities do not seem to have any public buildings apart from temples, and no signs of agricultural surplus being collected and redistributed amongst citizens. They were, by definition, villages - albeit very populous ones.

Could you do me, please? I find this very intriguing! Here's my scramble: lieN Hnarrsoi Many thanks, in anticipation!

This topic was inspired by one started by M. Porcius Cato, on reviewing books about Pythagoras, but mindful of straying off topic, I decided to start this separate, but related thread on the system of mathematics and numbers used by the Greeks. I ask a question: What numerical system did the Greeks use? Did they have a written notation for it? If so, was it similar to the Roman numerical system? Did they have a concept of 'zero'?

'Ancient Rome - The Republic' by H.L. Havell (Geddes and Grosset) is quite good, and it has quite a bit to say about Rome under the Etruscan kings and the early republic. It is now quite old - its first edition was 1914 - but it is still in print, and I find it very readable. It has some photographs of buildings from the republican era, too. I bought my copy in the discount bookstore in Barrow in Furness!

We should try this on that Cleopatra coin.

Here is an interesting Wikipaedia article on the use of propaganda by Gallienus, and how it was used against him: Gallienus's chief method of reinforcing his position is seen in the coinage produced during his reign. The coins, especially those which full name-check the gods, provide clear evidence of a successful propaganda campaign in a time previous to television or newspapers. Quite a few of the Roman mints' issue had images of soldiers and the legend FIDES MILITVM ("loyalty of the soldiers") as well, despite the constant usurper problems. Gallienus took pains to make sure that he was regularly represented as victorious, merciful, and pious. The peasants and merchants who used these coins on a daily basis saw these messages and, with little evidence to the contrary, remained supportive of their Emperor. Word of mouth, one hoped (and Rome's rumor mill was second to none in the ancient world), did the rest. There were, however, those who knew better. Propaganda worked both ways; several comedians ambled through the triumphal procession in Rome that Gallienus staged in 263 to commemorate his decennalia (tenth anniversary on the throne). When asked what they were doing, they answered that they were searching for the Emperor's father. As if anticipating this, Gallienus had had a number of men dressed in Persian costumes to resemble prisoners of war. Perhaps this Roman example of 'spin' enabled Gallienus to last so long at a time when to be Emperor was a deferred death sentence.

I'm with Augusta on this one. Caesar, Constantine, Charlemagne, Henry VIII and Cromwell were all ruthless and brutal leaders, yet they are regarded quite positively these days by historians. Stalin is regarded far more positively than Hitler, and it is considered a little quirky to wear the hammer and sickle insignia - is that any different from lauding Hitler and wearing a swastika? Whoops! Sorry.

Some cities now are considered great on account of their visible remains, although they were not particularly outstanding in their day. Examples are Pompeii and Herculaneum in Italy, Ephesus in Turkey, Nimes and Arles in France, Leptis Magna in Libya and Trier in Germany.

I saw a film of the last days of hitler starring Alec Guinness. I've forgotten what it was called, but it was very powerful and to me it seemed to achieve all that this new film apparantly does. I agree with MPC; Hitler did have a side to him which was 'more human' than the ranting dictator we see on old newsreels. To NOT portray his humanity would be a falsification of history.

I've just had a look at the picture of the coin. She closely resembles the woman who works in the local laundrette - even down to the hair rollers! My guess is that the tracts of land were too huge to adequately manage too! Seriously, though, both images of Antony look pretty similar, and I have seen other images on coins of Cleopatra, and they too resemble the laundrette woman, so I think the images are perhaps fairly accurate.

Its drafty in here...my bum isn't half cold! - Edward II

One account I read said that St. Valentine was a priest who secretly conducted marriage ceremonies for soldiers when marriage in the army was banned. I though the ban was lifted before the reign of Claudius Gothicus, though. Anyway, no - one sent ME a card

Search me! The only comparison I can draw is that some author (I forget who) suggested that the super - tribes of Allemanni, Frank and Goth were far more dangerous than, say, the Saxons, as they already had a degree of Romanisation and political organisation. Perhaps the fact that Afghanistan is far less urbanised, and therefore a cleaner slate, is a factor. Anyway, time presses and I need to get ready for work! It has been enjoyable to discuss such things with a proper historian. I have just rooted out from my bookcase something my mum gave me when she finished at university; a book called 'Japan - the years of triumph' which discusses the rise of Japan from the 17th century up to the defeat in 1945. As I am working nights tonight, and nothing much happens on a night shift, I shall actually read this book and learn something new. AVE!

I think the problem is that so many people in the Middle East simply dont want our culture, or democracy. They have a culture of their own. Japan was embracing Western culture before WW2 began. I believe that a country such as Cuba would probably be ripe for liberal democracy, as so much of its culture is Western orientated anyway ( somebody told me they even play baseball - is that true? ). In such an instance, I think the points you have raised would very much apply. But I really think that we should leave the Middle East alone - unless a particular country, as with Japan, shows a trend towards Westernisation. And yes, Israel is a success in that respect.