DecimusCaesar

Huh? Marcus Agrippa and Octavia...in love? Despite this quirk, I'll still give series 2 a look. If I can stomach Uli Edel's 'Julius Caesar', then I can definately tolerate the inaccuracies of Rome 2 (I hope...)

Aye! It 'd be great to see your book published!

Bucellarii were sometimes employed as bodyguards for emperors, and they also made their ways into the retinue of generals like Aetius, Stilichio and Belisarius (He took 1,100 Bucellarii with him to Africa, according to Procopius). The Bucellarii themesleves seemed to have composed of large amounts of horse warriors, the reason for this being their better mobility. A law passed in AD 476 (the year of the Western Empire's fall) made it illegal to hire "armed slaves, Bucellarii or Isaurians". Although they were always frowned upon by the Roman government - they took away potential soldiers from the Roman army, and employed them for private purposes- the government did sometimes allow them, for instance they could be hired to fight in overseas wars. The term Bucellarii is sometimes translated as biscuit eater, which goes to show that they were being fed and supplied by rich magnates and not by the Roman government.

Thank you Augusta! Come to think of it, wasn't series one of Rome brodcast around september, or at least the closing months of 2005? You are almost certainly right about the next series being shown around the same time of year.

The absence of 'Rome' on the BBC screens has been confusing me as well. I would have thought they'd start showing by now. Who knows, It might not be shown towards the end of the year- although I hope it won't. I'd wish the BBC would at least give us some news!

It is a shame that it's down. It's a really useful resource, to consider that it was published in the mid nineteenth century. Thanks for posting the link to Lacus Curtius version, Publius!

Wasn't the Russo-Japanese war the first to make mass use of machine guns on the battlefield? I have an intrest in Japanese Feudal history, but I know very little about events after the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877. On another note, I'v read several books on the transition from the Shogunate to the Meiji period in Japan. it was amazing how the Japanese had locked themselves off from the Western world in 17th Century, only to open it's doors to modernity- after much persuasion and bombardment from the US and European powers. Sakamoto Ryoma played a major part in convincing the feudal, ultra-conservative samurai to give up their privelaged position and stipends to embrace western technology and manpower. After the end of the Boshin war in 1867 the samurai class was officialy abolished, along with the Shogunate bakufu (military government). Unfortunately for the Europeans and the US, the new Imperial army did not renounce bushido, the samurai code of honour. This allowed it to be perverted in future generations, resulting in the worst degredations of the Japanese in World War 2. Bushido itself had played no part in the wars of Medieval Japan. It was the product of the Tokugawa Shogunate - a way of making the warrior class have a sense of purpose in an age without war.

Barry Cunliffe's books are a great introduction to the ancient Celts. His scholarship is up to date; considering he's one of the leading experts on Pre-Roman Europe. Simon Berresford Ellis has published many books on the ancient Celts, although these are not up to the standards of Cunliffe's books. He does write about obscure subjects - Celtic women, Druids etc, yet most of his work is tinged with bias. He glorifies the Celts a bit too much, and is often unwilling to explore the darker sides of Celtic culture - human sacrifice, head hunting etc. He considers most of these as being slurs made by xenophobic Greeks and Romans. Still, a lot of his books are worth a look; as long as you take a lot of what he says with a pinch of salt. I enjoyed some sections of his 'Celts and Romans' that I read in the library. Simon James' 'The world of the Celts' is also a good, short and colorful look at the Celts. The book is well illustrated with colour photographs and drawings. Although I suppose that Dr. James would disagree with a few things he's written in the book by today.

The amount of soldiers a Count could command depended on where he was situated in the Western Empire. For instance, The Count of Britain had five units under his command ( Four Vexillatio Comitatenses and one Legio Comitatenses). The Count of Africa on the other hand would have thirty-one units under his command (including eight Legio Comitatenses, three Legio Palatina, and nineteen Vexillatio Comitatenses - not including other troops). The size of these units varied, although it is not too incorrect to believe that most Counts would command up to a thousand troops. In the armies of the Dominate we see a shift from using large armies to using smaller detachments (the Vexillationes). Some Late Roman forts are only large enough to house one cohort, plus some extra groups such as marines, in the case of the Saxon shore forts. The size and nature of the Dominate army is therefore a puzzle to some extent. It is difficult to know the amount of soldiers in units, especially considering that Foederati and Numeri would sometimes be added amongst the Limitanei, and the limitanei would sometimes be added to the Comitatenses- forming the Pseudo-Comitatenses.

I can find very little information about the subject, although according to one source, around AD c.300 the fort at Chester was refurbished. The plastering of fort walls continued into the Dominate period, and from what little illustrations I've seen, the walls were of a plain white colour - such as that of the El-Leijun. I don't know if this fashion was copied in Britain at the time, although it does seem that many of the Saxon shore forts, such as that at Richmond, had buildings constructed of timber rather than stone, as some of the Principate forts would have been. Hopefully I'll be able to get some pictures up in the Gallery, although I don't know how much help they'll be.

Constantinople had fallen into decay by the late fifteenth century. When the city was taken by the Ottomans in 1453; the Sultan Mehmet II surveyed his newly conquered capital. According to sources he visited the Palace of the Emperors that was already ruined by that time. Even though the city suffered only miminal damage in the conquest - The sultan had ordered the soldiers not to damage the buildings - some of the old Byzantine buildings were swept away to make way for Ottoman ones. The burial grounds of several Byzantine emperors were demolished and mosques were built in their place. Many of the old churches were also converted to mosques - their interiors re-furbished to suit Ottoman tastes. As for the Byzantium of Constantine I, not much of it survives today. The city was built quickly during the early days, and as a result the buildings were not sound. Many of them had already collapsed a few years after Constantine's death. Others were demolished by subsequent Byzantine rulers. There's more information to be had on the city's decline in Runciman's 'The Fall of Constantinople 1453'. I also recommend John Norwich's Byzantium trilogy - He might not discuss the ruination of city specifcally, but his history of the empire is indispensible.

I knew that Hitler had been awarded Man of the Year by Time magazine, but I never knew he'd been featured in Homes and Gardens Magazine! I suppose he also had an interview about his relationship with Eva Braun in Life magazine as well.

Most of the articles I come across that deal with the genetic history of Britain is contradictory. I read one by Dr. Mark Thomas of University College London- he stated that there was very little similarity between the genetics of the Welsh and the English. He later claimed that this was because the Anglo-Saxons had wiped out the native Britons. At the same time Prof. David Goldstein said that their were amazing similarities between the DNA of the Welsh and English, and therefore the impact of Anglo-Saxons on the genetic imprint of Britain was miminal. What's strange is that both men work for the same University, in the same department, yet they end up with wildly differing results. They also said that the DNA of the English matched up with the Dutch, and that this wasn't surprising giving that the Anglo-Saxons originated from the Netherlands and Germany. The BBC program 'Blood of the Vikings' claimed that the Irish and the Welsh were genetically identical, while the Scots and the English shared common DNA. This surprised the Scots, who considered themselves to be the descendants of the Scotii - the invaders of Caldeonia, who originated in northern Ireland. Now it appears that the Irish and English are genetically the same. It's hard to know what's real and what's not. But I suppose one of the main reasons for the different results seems to be that they only test the DNA of a few indivduals over a scattered area. Who's to know if some of these individuals aren't descended from French immigrants of the Revolution of 1789, or Dutch immigrants of the sixteenth century?

True, the designs for most of these helmets were influenced by Gallic helmets. It is only after the third century that we see types of helmet that developed independantly from the Gallic and Imperial types. The Intercisa helmet, for instance, bears no relationship to the earlier types. The Same can be said for the Deurne helmet and the Spangenhelm. These were usually influenced by barbarain peoples like the Sarmatians, the Sassanid Persians or one of the numerous Germanic tribes.

I can't add much to the link that GO has posted. According to Southern and Dixon's Late Roman Army, the arcani (or areani) are mentioned as being housed around Hadrian's Wall (as was mentioned in the link). It also metnions that Theodosius had dissmissed the arcani when he had ordered the withdrawl of troops from off the wall. Very little is known about the arcani, but according Ammianus they were scouts or intelligence gatherers, who scouted over long distances to warn the Roman army of any likely trouble. They seem to have been dismissed because they had handed information over to the native Britons or Caledonians and therefore could not be trusted.

Thanks for the replies everyone! I do have to agree that it certainly is the best illustrated book I've ever seen on Roman Britain. I think the artist, Ron Embleton, did some work for Osprey publishing which isn't surprising. Sadly he died a few years after this book was published. It is also sad to consider that they never got a chance to "add and to improve many of the illustrations". Imagine if Embleton were alive today, the newest edition of the book would contain even more reconstructions. Thanks for that GPM. I remember discussing it with Pertinax before Christmas. I've pre-ordered the book, hopefully it will arrive soon.

Has anyone here read this book? Pertinax, Northern Neil and GPM are big fans of the wall, and I also have an intrest in it. I brought the book from a second hand bookshop recently, and I've wondered if it's still historically correct - considering that there's been quite a lot of modern scholarship on the wall in the last few years. This book was published in the early eighties I would have thought that a few of the stuff featured within it would have been overturned by new research. Not only that but I've checked many internet sellers and they say that the book has been out of print. Is this because it's no longer valid, or is it because of the difficulty of publishing the book - it does have 71 colour illustrations in it. Even if it isn't as historically correct as some more modern books, it certainly looks as if it's the best illustrated book on Roman Britain ever published. The amount of reconstructive illustrations by Ron Embleton is astounding.

I'll be the first to say that the 'virtual domus' is absolutely terrific! The amount of detail is astounding, especially among the lares familiares. The drawings on the walls and on the vases are also excellently renderd. You've done a brilliant job on this DV!

I believe that's the Sutton Hoo helmet, supposedly that of the Saxon King Redwald. Those helmets were influenced by late Roman cavalry helmets. You can see the typical shape of a Roman helmet in it's design - the cheek pieces and the neck guard, supported by a typically late Roman style helmet bowl. Even the late Roman clibanarii would wear facemasks. This helmet itself wouldhave been modified to suit barbarian tatses. Yet it isn't hard to believe that many of these Roman designs (some of them influenced by barbarians themselves- Sassanids and Sarmatians) would have still have been worn by both Britons and Anglo-Saxons in the early Dark Ages.

Peter Berresford Ellis mentions in some of his (numerous) books about Celts; that one of the main reasons the Celts became militarily dominant in their early history was their use of cavalry. Some of the Roman sources, including Caesar, attest to the greatness of Celtic horsemanship. Caesar even employed Gallic cavalry in his wars in the east. Pausanias mentions that the Galatae had their own method of fighting on horseback that they referred to as Trimarcisia : "To each horseman were attached two attendants who were themselves skilled riders. When the Galatian horsemen were engaged, these attendants remained behind the ranks. If the horseman was killed, one of the attenadants would replace him; if injured, the second would help him back to camp. Should his horse be hurt, one of the attendants would bring him a remount." Caesar also mentions the use of this tactic in 'The Gallic Wars'. He even mentions that Vercingetorix made use of cavalry to ambush and kill Roman foragers. These Cavalry formations would even be supported by infantry to increase their effectivness. Despite this, Tacitus tells us that the Celts main strength lay in the use of their infantry, who did not have the skill or equipment of the cavalryman. Another problem with the cavalry was that the Celts would use them in the same manner as the chariots. They would ride their horses into battle, only to dismount, tether the horse with small pegs to the ground, and then engage the enemy in hand to hand combat. Therefore it would seem that the Cavalry's strength would be depleted, what with the warriors dismounting to join the infantry.

Kosmo is correct. Scythian grave finds have been recorded all across these areas between the Donets river and the Dniestr river. The majority of the largest grave finds in Scythian territory seems to be around Melgunov, Gaimonov, Chertomlyk, Solokha, Kul Oba, Kelermes and Kostromkaya. Most of these lies between Crimea and the modern city of Kiev. Althougfh sites such as Kelermes and Kostromskaya are to the north of the Caucasus. Most of this information can be found in the Scythians 700-300 BC by Russian historian and archaeologist Dr. E V Cernenko.

The models impressive. It must have taken this man ages to make.

That was hilarious! Thank you for sharing. I wonder what Socrates would make of that. It would be great to see him going on rampage, destroying philosophies and morals as well as skulls. Tom Cruise would probably volunteer for the job, seeing as it would give him a chance to do his fight scenes, as well as a podium to spout his ideas.

The last chapter of Edward Gibbon's 'The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire' mentions the decline of the city of Rome, although it mainly mentions the decline in the fifteenth century. It can be read here - Chapter 71 By the way Ludovicus, that's an excellent website with some brilliant illustrations and photographs. Thank you for posting it.

It seems that they are barrows, after all there are some barrows near wooded areas. For instance the Winterbourne Stoke barrow group is near a wooded area, although these seem to be to further to the west of Stonehenge.