DecimusCaesar

Perhaps this article might be of some use to you: Cataphracts and Clibinarii I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but it is very interesting.

Thank you for your quick answer Nephele! Yes I was thinking of something along the lines of Original Sin. Perhaps it would have been better if I had consulted a dictionary on the broader meaning of the word before posting! Thanks again for your answer!

I'll be looking forward to your future blogs, whether they are in English or Chinglish!

This is an absolutely brilliant site, it's fun, full of great information, well maintained and updated, with a great set of wonderful forummers, it's civil, laidback, well illustrated... I could go on! A big thank you to the site's administrators for keeping it up and running. Keep up the Excellent work!!!

Thanks for posting this interesting thesis Ingsoc! The architectural work of Marcus Agrippa stand as some of the most impressive in Rome, even if the Pantheon that we see today was actually built by Hadrian (and does not resemble the original temple on the site). The sections on Agrippa road networks in Gaul were also very enlightening.

I have always thought that 'Sin' is a Christian concept derived from the story of Genesis, and that such a concept would not have been in existance in Pagan Rome. Recently I began reading a book about Ancient Egypt. There was a chapter that discussed Egyptian Science and how it differed to that of their neighbours in Mesoptamia - The Babylonians. Interestingly, it said that the Babylonians believed that illness was caused by sin, a concept that was rejected by the Egyptians. If the Babylonians had a concept of Sin, would the pagan Romans have held one too? Or did it only come into existance with Christianity. If the pagans had a concept of sin, then how would it have differed from the Christian one? Was there even a concept of sin in Christian Rome, or was it a construct of the Middle Ages?

I did some studying on Roman funeral practices and burial, and there was no mentioning of any act of this sort being performed. It is likely that it was just made for effect (similar with the chanting women at Caesar's deathbed... there is no mention of anything similar in the ancient sources, unless they were meant to be professional funeral mourners) unless it is an incredibly obscure source.

A great picture JP! I have never seen an illustration of a Ptolemaic infantryman before, so this was a pleasent surprise. Congratulations on getting your artwork posted on 'The ancient Warfare Magazine'. I saw some of it posted on their website. Keep up the goodwork!

SPOILERS: Well your demand was answered! It seems as if they are trying to kill off as many characters as possible, seeing as the show's finally reaching its conclusion. Is it just me or are there the strange continuity errors in the Show? For instance in one scene we see Mascius still in bandages and on crutches after his assault in the last episode. Yet Lucius the Younger has grown up, even though he was a little boy in the last episode (if my memory serves me). It would seem that Mascius has taken a few years to get over some bumps and scratches (unless he's been in other fights since). Have to agree with Augusta and MPC on James Purefoy's Antony - it is excellent. His descent from charming rogue to broken drug-addict was performed brilliantly on this wednesday's episode.

The Romans were the first people to have made use of things we could describe as passports as well. Although these would have been a collection of papers rather than anything resembling a modern passport booklet.

There's only two epsidoes of the series left now! (SPOILERS!! - For those who haven't seen the episodes- Death Mask and A Necessary Fiction ) Did anyone else think that the last few episodes seem rushed? We have only 2 epsiodes covering the relationship betweeen Antony and Cleopatra. Considering that the series ends in 30 BC, and that the last episode (A necessary fiction) was set in c.39 BC, that leaves out years worth of events in just 2 hours. The 1963 movie 'Cleopatra' managed to devote more time to this story than this series. It's a shame really, as I feel they could have at least had another series to go on. It would seem that the Jewish subplot with Timon has come to a conclusion. I can't see why it was included in the series as it didn't seem to go anywhere, and it ended with an anti-climax. Levi, Timon's older brother, didn't seem properly developed, and it felt as if the storyline was created so that it could extend to a third series, but it had to be cut short due to the show's cancellation. I just felt that Levi's death was thrown in just to end the subplot before the second series reached its conclusion. Plus, it never fitted in with the rest of the show's storyline on the collapse of the Roman Republic, considering that Judea, Herod etc hadn't even been featured in the series before this point. Did any else think that the death of Eirene was rushed as well? It seemed as if she was just killed off for no good reason (like Levi). Pullo managed to get over her (and his son) really quickly as well. He mopes around for a minute or two of the show's time, before returning back to his usual self, except that he now enjoy's biting people's tounges off.

I saw this one today. I had been avoiding it for some time, thanks to the awful trailer, but I finally decided to take the plunge. Within the first few minutes of the film we have a senator discussing how Rome is a democracy - this was a bad start that did not bode well for the rest of the film. The politics and culture of Rome was portrayed in a inaccurate way, e.g - at one point of the film we hear one man say something along the lines of "There has never been two consuls of Rome!" and at another Crassus and a senator discuss how to win the votes of the ordinary man. At one point Crassus even discusses 'The Founding fathers of our country' as if Rome was the USA. Crassus himself is portrayed as a cross between Bush and Hitler. He tells his enemies that they are either "with him or against him", and he makes speeches about terror and national security etc. At another point in the film, he burns hundreds of slaves alive - plumes of smoke rising above Rome as if from some Nazi death camp. Roman religion seemed to be non-existant. Spartacus is portrayed as an atheist who believes that humans are nothing more than flesh and bones. Varinia (a Gaul, not a Thracian...or Tracean as its pronounced by some characters) tells him that the gods exist within our bodies, that they are our souls. A couple of Romans say things like "My God" and "God help us!" etc. Overall its a poor representation of Roman society, politics and religion. The costumes and sets are slightly realistic, but only for the first century AD, not for the first century BC. We have Roman soldiers in leather lorica segmentata, and the walls of the villas are similar to those of Pompeii. Still, one thing that did surprise me was how closely they followed the events of Spartacus' rebellion. He does escape up to mount Vesuvius. He defeats Glabarus by scalling down the mountain side using ropes, as mentioned by Plutarch. It does show some of his battles against enemy legions. It also shows that he attempted to break through the alps to Gaul, and his desicion to turn back so that he could plunder and ravage Italy. I was also surprised to see that they showed Crassus' attempts to stop Sparatcus crossing to Sicily by cutting him off with earthworks and palisades. I was amazed that they kept in the part where Spartacus crucified Roman prisoners of war to taunt Crassus' army - you would have never have seen that with Douglas's more heroic portrayl - Visnjic's Spartacus is darker and more brutal. We get to see the division and antagonism between Crixus and Spartacus' forces, and the subsequent defeat of Crixus's own army when he brakes off of Spartacus' main force. The slaves themselves are less heroic than the ones in Douglas's version - they want to plunder Italy, they want to capture Sicily to bleed the Romans dry, they torture and kill Roman prisoners, many of them even want to own Roman slaves themselves. They are much more vengeful and less willing to listen to Spartacus' orders. Finally, they show that Spartacus gets killed in battle against Crassus' legions -there is no "I'm Spartacus!" and no tearful goodbyes between Varinia and a crucified Spartacus in this version. The film ends with Pompey winning the glory for Crassus' victory, and the two men being made consuls of Rome. This part is more truthful than the Douglas film. The hammy acting does ruin the film, and the script isn't up too much. One scene that made me cringe was when Crassus yells "For Rome... Spartacus you will die!" to which Spartacus replies "Freedom!" Overall it was an above average tv movie, spoiled somewhat by bad acting by some characters, and a poor portrayl of Roman society. Yet it managed to be much more succesful in it's portrayl of the Gladiator/Slave Rebellion than the Douglas/Kubrick movie, and if you don't take it too seriously it's entertaining enough.

I heard his next book will be about the Medieval period. Possibly the Norman conquests or the Crusades. A Crusades book would make more sense considering the reason he wrote Persian Fire (East vs West). I just hope he makes another book set in the ancient world.

Have a very Happy Birthday! Hope you enjoy your day!

The idea of a chiming clock is interesting, considering that many people list it as an anachronism when its mentioned in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Waterclocks are also mentioned in Peter James and Nick Thorpe's book 'Ancient Inventions'. It might be worth to check out the book for more information.

That's a great essay Ursus! It's interesting to see that Pagan beliefs changed and were sometimes abandoned as new discoveries were made in astronomy and science. It's also interesting to see how late paganism was influenced by Ptolemy's view of the universe. Had classical Paganism survived into the fourteenth - fifteenth centuries AD, would it have adapted to the Copernican system? Or would it have been as opposed to the Heliocentric version as the Christian church was? We will never know.

How about Late Roman Generals? Men like Flavius Aetius and Stilicho? What's interesting about them is that they were virtual warlords, perhaps with as much power and influence as the Emperors they served. Aetius played an important part in the politics of ther era, as well asbeing the man who led the Romans to their last victory against Attila the Hun at the Battle of Chalons. He's a very interesting figure and there is no main stream biography on him, only a few expensive monographs. Attila has plenty of mainstream biographies, so 'The Last of the Romans' deserves one too.

Interestingly, many Hellenistic historians claim that Heron of Alexandria did not invent these machines, but that he had recorded the inventions of past scientists. Some even claim that by the first century AD, there was a decline in technology. Whether this is true or not is hard to tell.

I have an interest in ancient Greece, although it certainly isn't as strong as my interest in Rome. I think one of the main reasons for this is that Greek history is too incomplete. We know quite a bit about Athens and Sparta, less of Corinth and Thebes, while our knowledge of other city-states are very bare. The further back we go - to Crete and Mycenae - the less there is to see. Another problem is the lack of primary sources. We might have Thucydides, Xenophon and Herodotus, but many of Greece's most interesting periods are inadequately covered. Take Alexander for instance - everything we know about him was written centuries after his death, usually by Romans like Arrian and Quintus Curtius Rufus. As a result, the struggles of the Greeks seem more distant.

Thanks for all your recommendations! I'll try and get a hold of some of them in the next few weeks. I forgot about 'Fall of the Roman Empire' and 'The Caesars' so thanks for the suggestion PP and Nephele. A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum sounds very interesting Flavia, so I'll definately try and get a copy of it.

That's Fascinating Augusta! Many people, including the famous Egyptologist Kent Weeks, dream of being able to come face to face with mummies. I missed a chance to see the mummies at the Britsh museum, but I hope to go back there in the future.

Recently I brought both Ben-Hur and Cleopatra (Taylor, Burton film) and I was half way through viewing it. I've thought it odd that I've been interested in ancient Rome for many years but I have never really seen many of the 'Classic' films or tv shows about this period. I currently have: Ben-Hur (1959 and 1925 Versions) Spartacus (1960) Cleopatra (1963) I, Claudius (1976) Gladiator (2000) Julius Caesar (2002 - Jeremy Sisto/Uli Edel Version) Rome - Series 1 (2005) Could anyone recommend a good film/show about this era ? What are your own thoughts on the films/Tv shows I've listed? Did you enjoy or hate them?

I've been reading John Mann's Attila the Hun as well as Jared Diamond's Collapse. They are both very good. I might even review Mann's Attila. Outside of that I've been reading Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe, a book given to me as a present. Its a bit out of date (reviews to obscure TV shows of the year 2000 etc) but it's still hilarious.

... And I personally cannot see how President Bush is similar to Diocletian. I find it strange that the aricle seems to stop abruptly with Valerian's death. I thought that it would have at least had some sort of closure or a round up of the article's ideas. Very strange.