DecimusCaesar

Those are really well made LW! Excellent job!

An interesting find. I had no idea that such a long time had passed since a Roman gravestone had been found in Scotland. I also find it interesting that so many soldiers graves are covered in images of barbarians being massacred. What would a civilian grave from the period have been like? After all we have some grand examples on the outskirts of Rome, but what about those of the Romano-Britons? I'm pretty sure they would not have wanted such aggressive carvings on their headstones.

He was also known for his frequent affairs with other men's wives as well. That must not have made him popular with some senators. What's interesting is that many people today see Hadrian as one of the good emperors, yet in his one time he was considered a bit of a tyrant by the common man. After his death many Romans didn't mourn his passing. Cassius Dio mentions this in his works, I think. A lot of this hate seemed to stem from the unnecessary executions he had committed in his early reign, so I suppose some saw him as a 'mild Nero'.

I'm a great fan of the books of Peter Connolly. I remember his books were some of the early catalysts for my interest in Ancient Rome. I've been trying to find most of his work as they've been out of print for many years. So far I've managed to get some second hand copies of - Tiberius Claudius Maximus - The Cavalryman. (1988) The Greek Armies (1975) The Roman Army (1975) Warfare in the Ancient World (1989) The Roman Fort (1991) I also have first hand copies of 'Greece and Rome at War', 'Pompeii', 'The Ancient City: Life in Classical Athens & Rome', 'The Holy Land' and 'The Ancient Greece of Odysseus'. I have heard that he published a book in the mid seventies on the armies of 'Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome', although I'm finding it hard to get a copy - amazon do sell some copies, but for extortionate prices. What has bugged me for some years is that I remember looking through a copy of a book by Connolly on the Celts when I was younger. I've searched on the internet for ages trying to find a copy of this book, yet I can't even find a single mention of it. Was there ever a Connolly title on the Celts? (I own a copy of Professor Simon James' 'Exploring the World of the Celts' and that does contain some Connolly illustrations involving the Celts - one's I haven't seen in his other titles) Does anyone have any information on this Celtic title? What are your own thoughts on Connolly?

That seems to be glitch of the game I suppose. It always happened to me as well. It's a shame really as when I arrive in the East as the Romans I want to battle the Parthians (maybe the Seleucids) and not the Egyptians. The fact that they've stepped right out of the Bronze age is also off putting, but there you go...

I really like it, it looks good! I also like how it now matches up with the template used for the forums. The colour and the design are great, and I didn't find it hard to ajust to the new buttons and heading placements. Very good job Moon!

There were snobs and there were social-mixers as Neil pointed out. Even as late as the fourth century when Roman citizenship had already been extended to everyone who lived inside the Empire's borders; there were still those who were contemptuous of 'Roman' citizens from other lands. There is an example of this in a short poem of Ausonius of Bordeaux, about a Romano-Briton called Silvius Bonus: "Who is Silvius?' 'He is a Briton'. 'Either this Silvius is no Briton, or he is Silvius "Bad". Silvius is called Good and called a Briton.... No good man is a Briton. We see The Britons still being called 'Wild' as late as AD 417 (after the province had been lost to Rome), although throughout much of Roman history they were considered to be 'Wretched little Britons'. This shows that some Romans still hated their fellow citizens from the provinces.

Although this might not be strictly in the 'Classical' period of Roman history, it does rank as one of my favourite Roman paintings: It might be a picture of the young emperor Valentian, his siter Honoria, and their mother Galla Placidia. It was supposedly commisioned for the tomb of Placidia who died in AD 450/1, therefore placing it within the last few decades of the Western Roman Empire. According Peter Brown's 'World of Late Antiquity' it's a "Family Group of the fourth century" (not the fifth) and it's part of "gold glass inset in a cross".

Happy Birthday, Mighty Imperator!! Have a great day!

Wonderful pictures of the stes Flavia, they are fantastic. I didn't get a chance to see all of the 'Roman Mysteries' when it first aired, so hopefully I'll be able to get up to date with the series.

I'm downloading it now. It's a huge file though, about 600 MB. Trouble is that I have a feeling that this isn't going to work.

Interestingly it doesn't steer. A chariot can only change direction if it has spoked wheels. Considering that the Sumerian chariot did have that, if it were to turn too quickly it would either brake the wheels - which were held in place by ropes- or the chariot would tip over. Thre Sumerians in effect could only head forward in battle. If they had to stop and change around they had to physically move it. As such it was only good for intimdating the enemy, who would most probably never have seen such a thing (considering this was over 4,000 years ago). I noticed that in recent years that archaeologists no longer refer to it as a chariot, but as a 'Battle Wagon'.

I have to agree with Cato on this one. Rome, at least the Western Roman Empire, did fall. The Roman state changed constantly throughout its history, although there were many things that stayed the same. Roman culture with its baths, aqueducts and sports had been in existance since the Republic, and they had continued well into the Dominate period- even if the Empire had become a militarised christian bureaucracy. Another famous feature of Roman society was the life centred around towns and cities. By the seventh century, virtually all of this had disappeared in Western Europe. Now you had Germanic Kingdoms in their place, ruled by tribal warlords who lived in small villages. Culture centred around Heroic singing and drinking mead in the warlord's hall. It wasn't until Charlemagne became Holy Roman Emperor, that these kingdoms began looking back to Rome for inspiration. They did not carry 'Rome's flame' as it were, as some historians such as Peter Brown suggest. Still, after reading Francis Pryor's 'Britain AD' I realise that those that support the 'continuity' hypothesis are still going strong. Pryor seems to suggest there was no invasions or collapse of Roman power in Britain...he even goes as far as too suggest that this same pattern applies to the whole of Roman Europe. Personally I think that Pryor and Brown have some interesting ideas, it's just that they tend to overstate their case.

I have Roman Battle Tactics, it's a great short introduction to the subject. As an added bonus there's a bunch of really great illustrations throughout the book. I added 'Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals' to my Amazon wishlist a few days back. It sounds like a really interesting title, although a tad bit too expensive for me at the moment. I'll have to wait till it's closer to Christmas to get that one.

Great review Doc! Well written and informative. A few months back I read Matyszack's 'Rome on Five Denarii a Day' a great book, I really enjoyed that one and I'd recommend it to anyone.

Glad to have you back with us G.O!

Congratulations Nephele!

Is it already 10/5/07 in England? And there's me thinking it had laready been show...

I haven't read this book so I can't be sure. Still, I think most historians can agree that the defeats of the traditional imperial legions at the hands of the Persians led to the changes within the military command within the next decades (especially under Diocletain in the 280's). So, I think that the Roman army was already going through tactical changes in this period. We see that the traditional chrage was dropped and the Romans adapted a shield wall formation. They also attempted some psychological taunts by polishing their armour so that it would glisten in the sun. They would also swing their shields around if they attempted to advance, almost as if they were attempting to hypnotize the enemy. The Persians would attempt to brake up the Roman formations by charging their Cataphracts at them. The Romans would tempt them to an attack by seperating the 'centuries', therefore appearing weak to the advancing Persian lines. Between the centuries groups of Lanciarii would charge throwing javelins at the cataphracts. The terrain would also be peppered with caltrops, which were used to damage the horses legs.

I missed this. Is there any chance of a repeat? perhaps at night they could show it on sign zone. I wouldn't mind. That is if its worth watching.

I wish they'd post some photographs soon!

A common opinion, but hardly a consensus; many scholars consider them Turkish ("Caucasoid"), and others even think they had no ethnic identity (ie, they may have been a confederacy of unrelated populations). It seems that as the Huns pushed towards the Roman Empire, they intergrated with the Germanic tribes they fought against. There is some suggestion that Odoacer was a Hun, because his father, Edeco, served in Attila's court. So, being part of the Mongoloid group might not define a Hun.

The "G J Caesar was emperor" myth will not die down soon, especially when there's full page adverts for Discovery Channel's series on Julius Caesar, which refers to him as the first emperor. I also notice that 'Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire' refers to him as emperor, even though Mary Beard was the historical consultant for the documentary. well...at least they aren't calling Rome's first emperor 'Julius Augustus' as one History Channel documentary did a few years back.

Perhaps, DC - who knows? If it is to be a saga of The Tudors then surely it should run from Henry VII through to Elizabeth. 'Rome' was a limitless title, as it were. Had the resources been available it could have gone on and on until the fall. I'm certainly going to give The Tudors a go. It is one of my favourite periods of English history (I fell in love with it when I was 8!) - so I hope they've done us proud. Hopefully, those of us who watch it can contribute lively discussion to a 'Tudors' thread. I studied the Tudors at school, but that was some years ago now. Maybe this show will jog my memory, and I'll start to remember facts from class. That's if I remember to watch the show, of course!

I decided to get the book, and although Pryor does present some very good arguments (he's also an excellent writer), I still have trouble accepting all of his points. I'm only halfway through, so It might be best if I finish it before I start opposing it. So far, he points out that settlements in Britain remained occupied from the late Iron Age till the post Roman period, and he therefore points out that the Saxons did not invade, as an invasion would signify the area being abandoned or at least recieving a new group os settlers. He says that the appearence of Saxon pottery on the site (along with Saxon Grubenhaus buildings) is just evidence of the native population accepting imported Saxon items from Europe...yet, this same settlement (Orton Hall Farm) had Roman pottery. Yet, no one argues that these Roman items were peacefully imported from Europe, and that the Romans never conquered England and Wales. I guess what Pryor is mainly arguing against, is the idea of the Saxons arriving in Britain as bloodthirsty Warriors who pillage, murder and destroy everything in their path. I for one can agree with him on this matter, but I'm still unconvinced that there was virtually no settlement (peacefull or violent) by the Saxons.