DecimusCaesar

I agree. I've already spoken to my editor and he knows of my desire to cover the 3rd century at some point. All I've got to do is complete the books I've already signed for, plus the ones we have a 'verbal' agreement on, plus ... I wonder if I could clone myself? Or maybe just learn to type faster ...? I'd love to see more books on the third century too; it's a very murky and confusing era - although by Diocletain's time the age of anarchy was coming to an end. Aurelian would make for fascinating biography, but too bad that the other emperors from the Crisis era, like the "much loved" Claudius II, Decius, Philip the Arab etc were not around long enough to construct biographies for them.

I was surprised by that outcome too. They have a weird tendency to pair up historical warrior types that aren't really suited to each other, or are from completely different eras - such as 18th century Pirate vs a 14th century Medieval Knight. With that one the Pirate won - which makes sense considering he had pistols and grenades - so the fights often feel like a foregone conclusion.

Hi Decimus, You can find all episodes for free here. Jeroen H de Lange, Amsterdam Thanks for the reply, Jeroen!

I don't have satellite television in my house, so I rarely get to watch stuff like the History Channel or Discovery etc. Last week though I did catch a series on National Geographic called Rome's Greatest Battles. The show was basically a docu-drama using matte backdrops, 3D computer effects and some actors to create a Roman battles - in this case it was the battle of Actium in 31 BC. What surprised me was that, although the narration was in English, all actor's speaking parts were in Latin with subtitles. I've tried looking for videos on Youtube or an episode listing but I can't seem to find much info on this show. Has anyone here seen it or have any extra info on the show?

I think you're right. I've heard that in the sequel - which I haven't read yet - that the main character is a descendant of Marcus Aquila and Cottia.

That's true. A quick glance at any youtube video on ancient Greek history will see arguements raging back and forth on this very subject. At one time I heard that the Greeks and the Macedonians were going to build huge Alexander statues on each oters borders, just to irritate each other. Amazed to see so mnay names on that petition though, inclduing Robin Lane Fox and Paul Cartledge. I had no idea they were so passionate about modern politics.

It'd be interesting to see where they go with this, although I'd like it if film companies took more risks and started covering other events and people from ancient history, instead of doing lots of Julius Caesar, Spartacus, and Cleopatra movies (they did it with Agora, Centurion, the Eagle). Still sounds interesting though.

Maybe this might fetch much more than

Thanks for the info Viggen. I'll be making purchases there once I get more money in.

Sterculinus the god of manure spreading, and Rogiba the goddess of grain mildew. In all seriousness though I think there's a number of gods and goddesses I'm interested in, I like for instance, Bacchus, Mars Ultor (mostly because of his impressive statue at the Musei Capitolini in Rome), Minerva, Juno, Apollo, and of course Jupiter (in all of his incarnations). I'm also interested in the Celtic gods, such as Taranis the thunderer, Belinus, Epona.

You make a good point there. I often put the Medes under the umbrella of Persian peoples because the lived in Iran, but is that wholly accurate thing to do? Not really, it would be the same as claiming the Etruscans and Romans are one people because they both influenced each other and lived in Italy. Reading this thread though has made me curious to learn more about the Achaemenid Persians and the Medes. The Medes do seem to have influenced the Achaemenids a lot, as they were descended from them, and were later incorporated into their empire.

I have Cunliffe's short intro to the Celts. I'll probably give this a look in the future too. It sounds much more up to date than Peter Beresford Ellis's book. Is there any mention of the so-called recent 'Druid' found in an excavation at Stanway in Colchester this year; or is that too recent an event?

You're right, I must have been thinking of Venta Silurum. The walls of Venta Icenorum look broken and overgrown by comparison. Hopefully the site will be properly excavated in the near future.

I was reading about Venta Icenorum not long ago. After Boudica's rebellion they had real trouble populating the town, which makes sense after Suetonius Paulinus's vengeful attacks on the Britons following the battle of Watling Street. The town became much more succesful later on, and the walls are very well preserved.

The Early Roman Warrior book looks interesting, it's nice to see a relativily ignored period of Roman history getting a look in. I was thinking of getting Richard Miles' book on Carthage a while back, but it was too expensive. Maybe I'll get the new cheaper paperback edition. It's odd that it's only now that the book's getting an American release.

I really like these videos, they've also done plenty of others on Classical history including- Julius Caesar, Cleopatra (Pharaohlicious), Hannibal, Attila the Hun, Constantine, Gladiator, Pompeii, Macedonia, Empress Theodora, the Trojan War, the Odyssey, Greek Philosophers, and a couple of others I'm sure I've missed out on. it's nice to see they're giving some good attention to ancient history as well as more modern events.

Great article, helped clear up my misconceptions of the term. Considering Pax Romana means a period of Romanization the term makes much more sense, although I was clearly confused beforehand by the 'pax' part. I'd agree with Ursus that this period ended with the Third Century Crisis. Rome did suffer some further problems in the fourth century with invasions by Goths, civil wars, and the religious and political division of the Empire (the banning of Paganism and the Western/Eastern empires). I suppose in someways the Romans attempted to pursue the same policy of Romanization of the barbarians as they had done in the past, but it obviously failed as these tribes demolished the Western Empire in the end.

The concept of the Pax Romana is rather odd now that I've come to think of it. The Empire was never really all that stable and peaceful even during the Principate. For instance during the period AD 40-70 you had the invasion of Britain, Boudica's revolt, the Jewish rebellion, the Civil War of AD 69, Corbulo's campaigns against Parthians in Armenia, mutiny among the Rhine/Danube Legions, and on and on. Even the golden age of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius had its fair share of violence, including an extremely bloody and destructive Jewish uprising during Hadrian's reign, as well as years of warfare against Germanic tribes during Marcus Aurelius's age. Some provinces tended to be more peaceful than others - Iberia or North Africa for instance - but overall the Empire was almost always at war, although never near as unstable as during the third century or the fifth.

It's true that protracted wars between Byzantium and Persia had weakened the two superpowers, but there was also internal instability within the Roman Empire which was a weakness that the Arabs could have exploited. Part of the failure of the Roman army to defeat the Arabs at the battle of Yarmouk in AD 636 was the infighting between various factions within the Roman army. These religious and political tensions ran much deeper within Roman/Byzantine society, something that the Sassanids had expolited in the past, and something that the Arabs did exploit when they appeared on the scene. It's also worth rememberig that the Arabs themselves were ambitious, energetic and rather zealous, so even if the Romans had defeted them at Yarmouk, they could have easily regrouped and tried again at a later time.

I think the problem with interpretating the evidence is this - say you find a ancient body. The man is buried with a Celtic sword and La tene style art, but his DNA states that he is a German. So is he a Celt or a German? Does La Tene style art really represent the Celts, or was it just a common Iron Age style? There in lies a problem. DNA and artistic styles/pottery etc doesn't really show what culture, language or identity group this man belonged too. The only we could really find that out was to ask him if he were alive. A nobleman buried in Ancient China with Roman pottery doesn't make that nobleman a Roman. A man with 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' DNA doesn't necessarily mean that this man would have identified himself with those groups. Culture and identity are hard things to pin down in the archaeological record - blood and pottery doesn't determine personal identity. The Romans are much easier to pin down as they usually left written records. What's interesting with this article is that it seems to hark back to the early genetic data (of around 2000-2001) which showed that the Anglo-Saxons dominated southern Britain. Recent surveys by Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes pointed out that Britain's genetic material was roughly unchanged since Neolithic times, and that the Anglo-Saxons had very little impact on the British blood. Now it seems we've come full circle - with evidence shifting to show Anglo-Saxon dominance.

Thanks for posting. I've been thinking of singing up to ancient warfare magazine for years now. Nice discussion too, although the section on chariot warfare towards then end seemed to have veered off the topic of Gaius Marius somewhat.

Imagine if they still had the HBO Rome sets from 2005-2007 series. I wonder if they will reconstruct the city, which they could then use for the Rome film, or whether this series will be much more intimate and down to earth, with only indoor shots, just like the 1976 BBC series.

That's true. It's also worth remembering that the wealthy elite made up around 200,000 people at the height of the Empire - a time when its total population was around 60-70 million. That's a tiny amount. The vast majority of the plebians would have lived in horrible dirt poor conditions under a brutal system.

Generally beyond Rome I have interest in other Classical era peoples like the Greeks, Persians, Celts etc - although I suppose that falls under the umberella of Rome. You could also add Byzantine history onto that list. Other than I have some interest in these eras, in no particular order: 1. Ancient Egypt 2. The First World War. 3. Medieval European culture (c.1000-1500). 4. Feudal Japan. 5. The Ottoman Empire (15-16th centuries, also WW1). 6. The Crusades. 7. The Napoleonic Period. 8. The Mongol Empire. I'm also vaguely interested in the English Civil War and Prehistoric and Dark Age Britain. Recently I've began developing a stronger interest in the Renaissance and Ancient China too.

There's no doubt that Julius Caesar is a very important figure in World History. He's one of history's 'Great Men' - although as Lord Acton pointed out, "Great men are almost always bad men". I suppose Caesar's status depends on who you are. For the poor men and women of Rome Caesar was a hero. For the Optimates in the Senate Caesar was a villain. I'm pretty sure that the Gauls and Germans hated Caesar with a passion too. Today though he is respected for his military and civil achievements, even though moderns wince when they hear about how he boasted about killing and enslaving millions of Gauls.