DecimusCaesar

I've heard its had a second series, So I'm guessing it was a success in America... Or is this second series done to wrap things like in HBO's Rome? I mean how far ahead can they go with this? Do you think we'll eventually have episodes set in Elizabeth I's court?

I was reading articles about Homo floresiensis a few months ago, and at that time it hadn't yet been given a proper classification...so its interesting to see that finally - a few years after the discovery- we seem to be reaching a synthesis on what Homo floresiensis actually was. On another note, I have to agree with Nephele that I find the name 'Hobbit' to describe this specimen rather annoying. It isn't that I despise the Lord of the Rings or anything, its just that I find the term grating.

Sometimes the Celt-Iberians put their hair into plaids, although this is the only example I can think of, and it's hardly dreadlocks at any rate. Braided hair of this sort would have been popular throughout the Iberian peninsual and its neighbouring islands - we can see the style used by the Balearics and the Lusitanians. So it might not even be a Celtic style at all.

Happy Birthday Julius Ratus! I raise my glass to you!

Talking of Rome: Total Realism, it has gotten me wondering, whatever happened to Europa Barbarorum? They began that mod before Rome: Total War was released. Nearly four years later (plus one sequel, three expansion packs and another sequel on the way - "Empire: Total War") and the last I heard, they were still making tweaks to the game engine...that's an amazing amount of work and dedication. This MOD has more features than most Total War games combined! Here's hoping they'll finish it eventually...and that it works on my PC of course.

The Trouble is that many historians and archaeologists are uneasy about using the term Celtic to describe a "Cultural entity" in the ancient world, seeing as what we describe as 'Celts' today might not have been 'Celtic' in the ancient world. For instance Nora Chadwick in her book described the 'Celts' as if they were almost a homogenous people with one language, culture and religion. Careful sifting of the historical and archaeological record has shown that the 'Celts' were much more varied than we originally thought. There were major differences between the Celt-Iberians and Gauls, and then there were differences between Gauls and Galatians, and so on. As such it is hard to reconstruct the ancient traditions of the 'Celts' as they were a varied people. The Gauls might have had Druids but the Celt-Iberians did not, and therefore the idea that there might be a common link between Celtic Druid practices and Vedic practices falls apart as there was not one homogenous Celtic entity that might have followed Vedic rites. Instead we have a group of tribes, each with their own varied beliefs and traditions. Another problem is that most of our ideas on Celtic Law and customs come from Medieval Irish and Welsh records, and we cannot be sure if they actually reflect the attitudes and beliefs of the Iron Age 'Celts'.

It might not be the most archaeologically rich Roman city in the world, but I always thought that the remains of Lepcis Magna (and other sites in Africa) were rather stunning. They are all well preserved, with large bathhouses, libraries, statues and mosaics. They must have been even more impressive in their hayday. Another site that will no doubt yeild much more archaeological treasures in the near future is the Roman underground. The Catacombs and the Cloaca Maxima run for some miles across Rome, and according to an article I read in National Geographic, many of those areas still remain to be properly searched.

The Onager might have been a relativily late addition to Roman arms. Ammianus gives a brief and rather confusing description of it in his works, which he describes as a one armed stone projector. He also seems to refer to it as a 'Scorpio' even though that name usually refers to an arrow firer. He claims that Scorpio was the old name for the artillery piece and that in his own day it was known as an Onager 'a wild ass'. There are breif descriptions of its use against infantry. Marcellinus describes it being used to repel Goths at the Siege of Adrianople in AD 378 (it was unsuccesful...not hitting one target, although it did scare the Goths), while at Amida, it is said that stones fired from Onagers crushed the skulls of the enemy.

First Pompeii and Herculaneum...now this. It's just another sad chapter of how lack of funds is destroying Rome's past.

Jordanes usually has a habit of resurrecting long dead peoples/civilisations in his works. In his account of the Hunnic invasion of Gaul and the Battle of Chalons in AD 451, he mentions that Attila's forces consisted of peoples such as the Bastarnae - a group that, by the fifth century AD, had long disappeared. He also mentions Celts and other long defeated groups among Attila's retinue, making his invasion force seem even larger and more destructive than it actually was.

I haven't had time to watch the series yet...as a matter of fact I still haven't gotten round to watching Attila. There does seem to be a few special features, although unlike season one, they are not found on one disc but are spread over several. As another interesting note, a new Rome book is now available to pre-order. It looks interesting - HBO Rome book on Amazon.co.uk HBO Rome Book at the HBO site This page allows to you to see a preview of the topics overed in the book.

I'd have to go with the Goths, Huns and Vandals. The Huns left the empire severly weakend (they were also much more dangerous than the other tribes because they made use of siege weapons) while it took the Goths to pave the way for the Huns. Interestingly the Goths, under Theoderic the Ostrogoth admired Roman culture. He built many monuments in imitation of the Roman style and was often treated as a Roman Warlord by the Byzantines - a sort of role similar to that of Stilicho or Aetius. It was only after the Byzantine re-conquest of Italy that the Gothic armies began to tear the city apart - although the Goths had never really had a full appreciation of Roman culture, there was some inkling of it somewhere in the policies of Theoderic. This also brings us to the special mention of the Vandals. It was they, under the command of King Gaiseric, that sacked Rome in AD 455. They also plundered Carthage and the provinces of north Africa, severly damaging Rome's ability to deal with the Huns and Goths. They also disrupted the Mediterranean trade - a huge blow to the economy - and one of the catalysts for throwing some of the region into the dark ages. They also inflicted a heavy defeat on the combined Romano-Byzantine forces that were sent to quash their piratical enterprises. Their final defeat at the hands of Belisarius brought control back into the region.

A late Happy Birthday to you Nephele! Hope you had a very good one!

Congratulations to your son on his exam success, Augusta! He'll no doubt enjoy his new Ancient History course.

Season 2 of Rome finally arrived today, after I'd been patiently waiting for it to arrive for several months. It should have arrived yesterday, but the damned post got delayed. I will be watching it in the next few weeks, to see if they have left out any scenes from the television broadcast.

Does Francis Pryor mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at all? These writings extend beyond the initial contact between the Anglo-Saxons and Britons in the fourth-sixth centuries AD. They mention several battles taking place between the Saxons and the Britons, as does the work of British chroniclers like Nennius etc. There is also some archaeological evidence such as the ruined remains of Huntcliffe and Goldsborough, where the bodies of up to 14 people had been massacred and dumped into a well (Huntcliffe), and the bodeis of individuals who had been stabbed and had their throats cut (Goldsborough). Nearby these sites, the Romans had set up forts such as Burgh Castle for coastal defence. Both these sites date to the early fifth century. There is also evidence of coin hoards and other symbols of wealth being buried across the country, such as those at Patching in Sussex. Pryor says that its ludicrous that people should just pick and move to another region, yet we know that during the same period as the Anglo-Saxon settlements, the Britons moved in droves to the coast of northern France, creating Brittany. We also know from the wider picture of events in Europe that dozens of tribes and peoples were moving on mass to settle in the Western Roman Empire. Most of this boils down to how archaeological evidence we have to show that Britain was settled. This is very difficult considering that battles and wars rarely register in the archaeological record, as they occur swiftly. Take into consideration the devastation brought on the Roman empire by the Goths and Huns. Although we know that many of these tribes caused considerable damage to towns, these rarely register, especially if people move back into the town and begin repairs and removal at a later date. Most of the sites from the 4th-5th centuries that were sacked by barbarians - and have evidence of this destruction - are usually sites that were never re-populated or rebuilt. How much archaeological evidence do we have for the sack of Rome by Vandals in AD 455, or the looting of the city by the Spanish in the sixteenth? What I am also unsure about is how the Britons through trade with the Anglii and the Saxonii, decided to take on these tribal names, and also refer to parts of their old country as Sussex, Wessex, Essex etc and why is there no mention of this complete cultural change in them in contempory records, both at home and abroad. I could understand this taking place if we have some small settlement by Saxons in these regions (such as what happened with the Normans in 1066) but why would it happen if there were no influx of Saxons into the region?

I was reading Britain BC recently and after finishing the book I was thinking of getting the next in the series: Britain AD. After reading through reviews on amazon and on academic sites, it seems that Dr. Pryor's new book isn't as recommended as the previous one. Most of the book's criticism is centered on the bizarre idea that the Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain, and further more they didn't even exist! Pryor bases his idea squarely on the shoulders of archaeology, as he basically refuses to aknowledge the historical record, claiming that writers such as Bede and Gildas made the invasion up in order to invent a creation myth for the English. He also suggest that because Britain was not over run by invaders such as Neolithic farmers, Beaker people and Celts in prehistoric times (as originally supposed by scholars) then it must be true that there was no Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, and that their culture, language, customs and art were peacefully imported by traders. He even suggests that the Saxon shore forts built by the Romans were used as trading warehouses not as defensive fortresses. There is, in his own point of view, no evidence for an invasion or settlement by Anglo-Saxons in the archaeological record in England. Has anyone else read this book? What's your opinion on this idea? I personally find it very, very bizarre as it goes against everything we know from the historical record. There are more sources for settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain than just the English and British written records - there are for instance the Roman records e.g - they mention the Barbarian conspiracy in Britain in AD 367, where the Saxons and the Picts launched a two pronged attack on southern Britain etc. Then there is also evidence from the continent from the Life of St. Germanus, and numerous records from other areas.

Congratulations, that looks very nice!

A rather late Happy Birthday to you Pan! Hope you enjoyed yourself.

Praetorians is a 2004 game where you take command of the armies of Caesar and Crassus and wage war during the final years of the Republic. The game engine is getting very creaky by today's standards, but it's still an enjoyable affair. Might be good to pass away a few hours on a rainy afternoon. Age of Empires: Rise of Rome was the first Roman themed game I played, although that was released about nine or ten years ago now, so the game is very, very dated.

I got an e-mail from a friend today, with this article attached. Unfortunately I can't find the origins or a date for the article. Has anyone else heard of this supposed project? With the success of 300 and Apocalypto, HBO's Rome series and older films like Gladiator, producer Scott Rudin (The Queen,Truman Show) has purchased the screen rights to the Robert Graves historical novel I, Claudius. The deal set Rudin back $2 million, according to Variety. The Graves novel is considered a classic in the telling of the behind the scenes intrigue that went on at the Roman palace and within the family of Augustus Caesar, from his early rise to power after the assassination of his Uncle Julius to the death of Claudius’ son Nero, the last of the Julian Emperors to rule over the Roman Empire. In 1976 the BBC undertook a massive television stage production of the novel. It was done so well that no one, until now, has even attempted to make another. There was one failed attempt to do a big screen production of I, Claudius in 1937. Producer Alexander Korda hired director Josef von Sternberg, with actors Charles Laughton as Claudius and Merle Oberon as Messalina. The film turned out to be a disasterous attempt and has, to this day, remained unfinished and is considered one of Hollywood's great lost movies. The BBC televised production starred some of the biggest names in British film and television including, John Hurt, Derek Jacobi, Sian Phillips, George Baker, Brian Blessed, and Patrick Stewart. Rumor has it that Rudin may be looking to one of Disney's owned studios, such as Touchstone or Miramax for the home of this monumental production because of his past successful dealings with Disney executives. Also on board with Rudin is Alison Owen (Shaun of the Dead) who will share producing duties. I can't see how this will work on the big screen. The novel is far too large and it encompasses a long period of history, far too long to be succesfully told on the silver screen. Perhaps they will take the road taken by the original film's creators and only follow the career of Caligula and Claudius own reaction to it. Any thoughts on this? Do you think this will be a success, or will Hollywood have another epic disaster on their hands ? (The Last Legion, Alexander) Personally, I think they should leave it with the series. The film might have better production values with a film budget, yet I can't see how they'll better the perfomances and the script of the series.

Since I first posted the list I've seen many Roman films, including: The Caesars (1968): The dvd was wrecked ( it looked like its previous owner had kicked it around the house and stabbed and torn the cover!) and despite the series having not weathered very well (grainy images, poor sound) I've enjoyed this series - I've only got one episode left to watch. A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Forum (1966): Thanks for recommending this Flavia and Nephele! I really enjoyed it. Catchy music and great scenes. A great part from Michael Crawford as well. Spartacus (2004): I didn't expect to like this much, but depsite all its errors it was an enjoyable and solid TV movie. Much more accurate than the Kubrick movie, although not nearly as epic. Caligula (1979): You need a wash after watching this... A very bizzare portrayl of Rome. It did a good job of managing to capture some of the brutality of the Romans. Fall of the Roman Empire (1964): Got a second hand copy of this through the post. The seller didn't say anything about just sending a DVD disc in an envelope (no box or cover) ...Oh Well! Despite being badly edited in some parts, and being rather slow in others, it was a good film. The sets were very impressive. Attila (2001): Haven't got round to watching this yet. From what i can see on the cover, it doesn't look like its going to be an accurate portrayl of the period. Gerard Butler playing a grotesque, bloodthirsty asian king whose face has been scarred in ritual?

The Legion was usually stationed at a Fort, while auxillaries were stationed in several areas. The Legion acted as a mobile army, moving from its base to certain trouble areas. For instance in Britain you had various Legions stationed at bases such as the XX at Chester, IX at York and the II at Caerleon. Hadrian's Wall on the other hand would have been patrolled by auxillaries.

That's a fascinating website Vigen, thanks for posting it. At least the messages of the Human race will live on in radio signal sent through space.

There are some suggestions that the Optio used the staff to keep the back of the maniple in formation, but this is just an idea (more in common with 18th century officers with pikes making sure the men's backs were straight) rather than an accepted fact.