DecimusCaesar

This is true, archaeologically it is very hard to distinguish what is Hunnic. The old theories suggest that it was the Hsuing-nu who plauged China that were the forefathers of the Huns. This idea was proposed in the 18th Century so I am not sure how valid it still is. What we do know is that by the reign of Attila, the Hunnic peoples had changed. Many Germans had joined their ranks as fellow warriors, while the Hunnic army itself was becoming more specialized. It was no longer the fast moving, cavalry dominated people it once was. The Huns themsleves could only move about 5-10 miles a day by Attila's time, as they had a large baggage train. The Huns also became specialists in siege warfare, they made use of towers and battering rams aginst the Romans; the first Barbarian peoples to do so. This made them a bigger threat than others like the Goths, who after Adrianople in 376, could not take the town as they lacked any artillery or towers. Therefore the Huns were a real threat to Europe and the Battle of the Catalunian Fields helped break them. Attila might have descended upon Italy a year later, but by then his force was not as strong as it once was. Perhaps if the battle had never been fought Attila would have been able to attack the country with his full forces and he might have even taken Rome. Who knows what action he might have taken if he had suceeded, but one thing would be certain: the history of Europe would have turned out very differently.

I read that the 'official' date for the founding of Rome was agreed upon by Roman historians to be 753 BC, after several discussions about when the city was founded, they agreed upon this date. According to what else that I have read, the Romans lacked information about their early past after the Gauls burnt all their historical records in 390 BC, when they sacked the city. Is there any truth in these ideas?

Great review Antiochus! I believe that Dando-Collins has written a book about Caesar's 10th Legion, do you plan on reading that in the future Antiochus? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no problem with historians 'dreaming up' some scenes as long as they reflect the truth. I noticed Alex Butterowrth did the same for his book, Pompeii: The Living City. It was slightly weird to begin with but all of his descriptions were accurate.

I don't know much about the Vikings, yet I have heard a few documentaries (which are hardly a good place to start) say that the word Viking is a swear word (from some language) for Pirate. How did this idea come about? Anyone else heard this been cited before? It is probably not true.

Here is a page I found about it on Wikipedia, they seem to be at a loss about it as well. Warning: the article contains very little footnotes, so I'm not sure how truthful it is - Roman Salute

Well at least it's cheap...

The guy is obviously out of his mind. Better for him to be in a mental hospital as Doc said. Imagine if you were in prison and you had cell mate like that.

Imagine the look on Vercingetorix's face if the Romans might have rolled this onto the battlefield...

What would you suggest is a good narrative history of the late Roman Empire (not including Heather's Fall of... book or John Norwich's Byzantium: The Early Centuries) ?

Wonderful review FC! I have been reading up a bit on Roman paganism recently and this book sounds like a good place to start.

Thanks for that Ursus! I was checking it earlier on Amazon, that's another to add to the Christmas list!

Another problem with this man's theories is that Stonehenge came in different phases, built over several centuries. First it was burrow, then they added wood ( a woodhenge) later on the stones were brought to the area and put in place, but a few centuries later some of the stones were adjusted into a different position. Seeing as the site was built up over many centuries, it is possible that the builders had plenty of time to construct the monument and perfect the placing of the stones.

If a slave was lucky and was well respected by his master he could become a freedman. Some Slaves who recieved little pay could buy themselves out of bondage. It is funny that you mention that slaves would dream of owning their own slaves as in the film the Gladiator trainer, Batiatus tells us, was once a slave and gladiator himself. I believe that it was the slaves themselves rather than Spartacus who demanded that they turn back from the Alps to continue their pillaging of Italy. The slaves were made up of various groups from different areas, including Gauls and Germans. It was these that broke off from Spartacus's main group and became a seperate gang led by Crixus, a German (who in the film remains friends with Spartacus till the very end). Crixus and his men were ambushed by the legions and destroyed before Spartacus' rebellion came to an end. It does go to show that Spartacus did not have a firm grip on the bands he was leading and therefore those who disagreed with his policies would brake off and form their own groups like Crixus did. Perhaps if Spartacus had not been persuaded by his men to remain in Italy, the slaves would have reached freedom in Gaul. Then again, Rome would not be likely to forgive or forget their enemies.

You have a point there Augusta, this series has kindled the intrest of a few people who previously did not know or care about Ancient history or Rome. If the series has gotten more people interested in the era and got them willing to go study the subject further then the series couldn't have been that bad. There have been worse or more inaccurate things that have gotten people interested in Rome, so this series might not have been such a bad starting point. It did follow the lives of some characters with at least some degree of accuracy and the different costumes and sets helped put across the idea that Rome was constantly changing. There have been a lot of bad/inaccurate/cheap documentaries about Ancient Rome, this series might not have been the best but there have certainly been worse. Then again not every one who had no intrest in Rome found it any good, as this comment I found on the Roman Army Website, which is quoted from the Radio Times magazine: It would seem that from now on the BBC should produce even more inaccurate documentaries to entertain people rather than inform them... As for Alaric, his portrayl was inaccurate, he wasn't trying to lead the Goths to a 'new and better homeland' so much as wanting to be given a place in the court of Honorius, he was a warrior leader and his concern was pay and service in the military for his men. When he was refused he lead an army to attack Rome. According to which book your reading, one will say that Alaric looted and destroyed Rome for three days, others say he kept the damage down to a minimum leaving only a few buildings damaged, although he did strip the city of it's wealth.

The 'gladius Hispaniensis' (Spanish sword mentioned by Lost Warrior) was in use by the Romans from around the Second Punic Wars until the end of the 1st Century BC. During the First Century AD the sword made way for the Pompeii types which were shorter. Later on the semi-spatha became the main sowrd used by the later era soldiers. The gladius did not look the same for an era, for instance their are 3 or 4 gladius's that date to the latter half of the First century AD that look different to each other i.e - different handles, sword shapes (some are wider or thinner bladed than the others) or even different scabbards.

Aren't there still a few villages scattered in northern Italy, near the alps I think, that still speak Latin as a first language?

Here is a few examples of the lack of uniformity among soldiers equipment: Romans 1 Romans 2 Romans 3 These are all first century AD legionnaires. Note the differances in the types of helmets, shields and armour worn by them as Caldrail pointed out.

An interesting article. If they were right, it would revolutionise our ideas about ancient landscapes and geography.

I wonder if they will have Brutus running himself through with the sword or will they change his death like they did with Cato's in the first series?

Happy Birthday Moonlapse! Hope you have a great one!!!

Didn't he also have a 'fight' with a whale in the port at Ostia? If this is true it shows he certainly had a flair for showing off to crowds.

Barry Cunliffe published a book called 'The Adventures of Pytheas the Greek' (Or something similar as I am writing from memory) - despite the title I believe it is an academic study although I haven't seen or read it. I have read other books by Barry Cunliffe and they are very good, he is a world renowned expert on Iron Age Europe. He was even knighted recently for his contributions to Prehistoric and Iron Age European studies. As for Pytheas himself his works are now extant, but they were quoted in other works by ancient geographers. I believe he never actually visited Britain but rather that he made contact with traders in Iberia who told him about the isle. It was in his work that he refers to Britain as 'Albion' - the first mention of this name in history. He might also have referred to the island as Prettani (the Celtic ? word for Britain was Prydain) which the Romans later softened to Britannnia.

The ancient texts claim that Octavian returned to Rome after Caesar's death filled with the lust for vengeance against his betrayers. Could this have been a genuine factor in this early stage that later developed into a quest for ultimate power or was it a simple suggestion on the part of Suetonius et al to explain Octavian's sudden drive for power?

Great stuff Pantagathus! I've come across pictures from this site before and I was wondering why people decided to put stuff on their cats. Well now I know!