Northern Neil

A small telescope or pair of binoculars would have been a precious thing.

Yes. Ptolemy 1st was one of Alexander the Great's generals.

Here here to that! I believe Sydney James was a ittle too handsome for the role of Marcus Antonius though. Seriously, I dont think I could add anything that hasn't already been said here or on PP's original link. Apart from how relieved I am that that no-one on either site is saying she should be portrayed as' Opressed, Black and African'. As for AJ's suitability or otherwise, at least she seems to have made an effort to read about her role, so we may see a surprising performance. I quite liked te actress who played her in HBO's 'Rome'. Forgotten her name, though.

Zooming in closer still, the excellent Ordnance Survey map of Hadrian's wall, showing all remains in red or black (depending on invisible or visible remains) has recently been re-published by English Heritage. On the other hand, for a very broad overview may I reccommend the Penguin Atlas of Ancient History and its companion The Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History? If still in print they provide a delightful cartoon strip of the growth of the republic/empire, its shrinkage and its continued fortunes in the middle ages as the renamed 'Byzantine' Empire.

'Diary of a Nobody' by the Grossmith brothers. The central character is so like my Dad!

Some shields - probably those of the poorer soldier/warrior were edged in Rawhide, which is the stuff 'dog-chews' are made of. Years ago when I was into re-enacrting and research, we found that edging in rawhide kept the planking at the edge of the shield straight and prevented individual planks bending. But most importantly we found that even a sharp sword had a job cutting through it, and it took a lot of effort to get through the rawhide and start damaging the shield proper. And we were using heavier, slightly longer swords than the late and immediate post Roman spatha.

The current government will make the neccessary cuts, and probably get the economy going again. The average voter however, motivated primarily from self-interest, will probably keep them out of office for the next three elections. I feel that Labour will be in power again before too long, all because another party (ies) is bold enough to unravel their mess.

Maybe the answer to some of these questions can be explained by looking at present-day trends in movement of peoples, and immigration from less developed to more developed countries? Pannonians, Gauls and Britons - at an earlier phase of the Empire - were all regarded as barbarian and uncouth, but within decades of annexation had become Romanised, and were considered citizens of 'Romania'. Indeed, after the third century this became a reality. The Germans, on the other hand, demanded a share of the Roman wealth and prosperity and a say in its government, and yet steadfastedly retained their own culture and language. This may have been seen at the time as taking, but not giving back. A modern parallel could be drawn with regard to attitudes towards ( and by ) immigrant communities in Western industrialised countries. Immigrant communities who 'fully integrate' are generally tolerated by the host population, whereas immigrant communities who are seen as wanting to reap the benefits but not contribute or integrate are regarded less favourably. Take for example Stilicho, pictured on a 5th century diptych with his Roman wife, but sporting a very German style moustache, or 'Gothic Beard' as it was called then. It probably wouldn't have gone down well at all. And moving into the 21st century, it is notable that some European countries are in the process of attempting to ban modes of dress employed by immigrant groups who find it difficult, in several ways, to integrate with the parent culture. Maybe the answers to some of these questions can be found by looking at present day communities in Britain and Holland, where certain immigrant communities are regarded with fear and suspicion, and others welcomed without any major problems? But this is all very delicate stuff, and one has to tread carefully!

I understand that the Roman gods - initially - were quite different entities to the Greek ones. Aside from Apollo and Heracles, who are adopted greek gods, the other Roman gods do not even have remotely similar names to their greek equivalents. The fact that the Greeks and Romans had gods which fulfilled similar roles is no surprise. The same could be said about Norse and Hindu gods. I believe that the Romans considered it a political expedient to say that, for example, Venus and Aphrodite, Jupiter and Zeus and so - on were the same entities. In Britain a similar attempt at political and religious unity was made when Minerva (already equated with Athena) was considered the same goddess as the Celtic water-spirit Sull.

Just another tangential insertion to this discussion; one particular innovation at this period being the use of PLUMBATAE instead of the Pilum. Obviously the concept of disabling the enemy with some sort of missile prior to engagement was still a standard Roman military technique, but instead of two heavy Pila, the late period legionary had five of these lead weighted darts held in a sort of rack inside the shield. To me this is a very practical refinement - almost modern in concept, and shows to me that the Roman army was still 'going somewhere' as late as the 350's.

Indeed, Ammianus refers to Legions comprised of Gauls and Pannonians, all of whom would have been considered citizens of Romania.Moreover, his description of their conduct in Julian's Persian campaign would seem to suggest that they were high -morale units. One Gaulish legion had to be ordered to the rear after they sustained a lot of casualties from constantly wanting to be in the thick of the fighting. They grudgingly complied. This account seems to run contrary to the view that late empire soldiers viewed military service as an onerous and undesireable task.

Nice to have you around, Silvereel. Whereabouts are you from?

I think the problem is in the way journalists report these things. Unfortunately the term 'ancient man' is used to describe anatomically modern individuals from relatively recent times.

In an attempt to deflect this thread from Adrianople (covered very adequately in a parallell thread) we could also mention the role of naval forces during the late Empire, and the possible first deliberate use of camouflage. Anecdotally, because I am not currently with my books, I remember a primary source referring to ships and marines being coloured in various shades of green, blue and grey to render themselves less visible at sea, when combating Saxon and Frisian pirates.

I suppose similarly the use of the word 'Vandal' has slipped into our language meaning one who commits criminal damage.

Could this be the same place as GLANNOVENTA, the fort and settlement at Ravenglass, west Cumbria? I think, within the context of this light-hearted discussion, we are safe to consider the St.Patrick story a late Roman one

...which is what a lot of people think today, and what I thought when I read about the tragic lynching of Hypatia in Carl Sagan's Cosmos. I have yet to see the film, but one or two others on the forum have alluded to its 'anti Christian' attitude. My personal view is that it is difficult NOT to have a negative view towards the particular bunch of fanatics who carried out this murder, set as it is amongst a backdrop of Theodosius' dismantling of Classical culture in general. I think it is time I sprang into action and bought a copy of this film from Amazon.

Ammianus is our main primary source, and he was actually an officer in that battle.

If you havent already read this, may I suggest the works of Ammianus Marcellinus? They are neatly put together in a work called 'The Later Roman Empire' and published currently by Penguin. Ammianus is very readable, and he goes into great detail about Julian's campaign against the Persians in 361. He describes legions as fulfilling an engineering role with regard to siege engines, and seems to allude to tried and tested formations such as the testudo. I might be so bold as to suggest that Diocletianus' reforms, in which legions were reorganised and reduced from over 5000 men to about 1000, simply tidied up an arrangement that had existed at least from the time of Trajan, when vexillations were sent from a quiet sector to a troublesome one, and took up permanent residence at their new base. I suspect that when Diocletian looked at the whole disorganised mess, with vexillations of legions spread out along 800 miles of frontier, his reforms made the administration of the system a good deal easier!

Old King Cole - A reference to Coel Hen, a British warlord associated with the command of the eastern part of Hadrian's Wall in the 4th century

No - but I certainly will thanks to your informative post, Barca. As a confirmed 'Byzantinist' I fully agree that the focus of the Empire was merely shifted rather than destroyed. I look forward to reading this.

Many thanks to all! Not a bad day really. Wow, 48...

Welcome aboard, Davus. Some of us hail from Britannia also!