DecimusCaesar

Happy Birthday Ghost of Clayton!

Talking about alternate history, I've been reading Sophia McDougall's Romanitas about a corrupt 21st Century Roman Empire. I think it was mentioned by some on this site when it was first released.

I finally got hold of the series on Monday after many months of waiting. I've watched five episodes so far. I have to admit I'm really enjoying it so far. The series got off to a shaky start, I thought some of the outdoor CGI effects were a bit ropey, the acting of some of the Thracian warriors was bombastic, while the dialogue tended to be cringeworthy at times. After a while I began getting used to the series' unique style, and now I can't wait to see what happens next. The last episode I saw had Spartacus and Crixus defeating the giant Theokles. It isn't historically accurate but it is entertaining.

The walls around Pompeii and Herculaneum offer some deep philosophical quotes: From Herculaneum. - from the Inn of the Muledrivers. Both from the basilica.

My knowledge of Roman economics is pretty limited, but I'm sure that Constantine and his successors tried to reverse some of Diocletian's poorer decisions. I think by Diocletian's time the silver content in coins had been reduced to zero, with most coins being washed with silver. Everybody could see through this and as a result coinage became increasingly devalued. Constantine tried to reverse this by keeping the gold standard. Gold coins can't be devalued in the same way as silver ones as they tend to lose colour. These reforms weren't entirely succesful, but they do show an attempt by Diocletian's successors to undo some of his economical errors. Too bad that the Roman economic structure had already altered by the third/fourth century anyway, with a decline in trade. With less trade with foreign markets - especially India, and gold running out from the mines in Spain and Dacia; the Roman landowners began to depend more and more on their locally produced goods - essentially produce off their own estates. Asa result the Romans were already getting poorer and poorer, even before the Germanic tribes began nabbing their territory and therefore their tax base.

That's a pretty gruesome find. Kent was invaded around AD 43, so this girl might have been killed around the time of Claudius's invasion of Britain, considering most archaeological dating techniques can't be 100% accurate - I think thae article said she died around AD 50. When you read the works of Tacitus and other Roman historians you get the sense that the Legions were pretty restless most of the time - there are constant stories of corruption, mutinies and poor treatment of soldiers by their commanding officers. This has got me thinking about how peaceful was the Pax Romana in reality? Sure, there might not have been any major wars, but I'm sure that the bored Roman legionaries would take out their frustration on the local population by murdering, robbing and raping civilians. After all, who was going to stop them?

Happy Birthday Ursus! I hope you had a great day!

Thanks for the reply, You don't need to aplogise at all! Got to say I'm looking forward to seeing how Lysandra's going to face up to Sorina this time round. Thanks again!

I did see some DVD copies of the first episode in a supermarket a few days back, I nearly bought it until I realised it was only one episode. I'll wait for the entire series.

Hmm, just recieved an e-mail that my pre-order of Roma Victrix has been cancelled as they cannot get any copies from their suppliers. Any news why this has happened? Has the book been delayed?

What's amazing is I first found out about Bin Laden's death from a Youtube 'Downfall' (Adolf Hitler's ranting) parody video.

Happy Birthday Crispina!

Strange, It's still listed as a mid May (15-16th) release on most websites. I haven't seen it around. I'm looking forward to seeing it though. Looks good, and its gotten some praise here and elsewhere.

That was a great, professionally made trailer. I'm looking forward to Roma Victrix, as I enjoyed reading Gladiatrix last winter.

This is by no means my favourite Roman quote, but it was the first one to pop in my head when I saw this topic. The words of the flatulent emperor Claudius while he was dying. With thanks to Maty!

James Purefoy also has a Medieval movie out in cinemas called Ironclad. It's about William Marshal's defense of Rochester castle against King John. I had heard about this film at an earlier time but I had no interest in it until I saw all the actors/actresses who were going to be in it. Here's a trailer -

Here's a review from historian Alex Von Tunzelmann of Reel History - Reel History - King Arthur As you can imagine it isn't very positive. I've been in to minds about seeing this film for years now. Considering all the negative feedback I have been put off from watching it. Curiously Roger Ebert gave this film a thumbs up even though he's a self confessed "epic movie" hater (he gave Gladiator two thumbs down) and one of my friends said it was an ok film. I have a feeling that like Ursus I'll eventually get round to watching this movie, but not any time soon.

I've played Shogun 2 and it's great game, much better than its two recent predecessors - Napoleon and Empire Total War. I've also heard rumours that the next total war game will be Rome 2, but then again there were rumours that after Napoleon they were going to go to Rome, but instead they did Shogun 2. Ursus and others might be glad to hear that in the last few games, Napoleon and Shogun included, the Total War series has payed much more attention to historical accuracy after fans complained about all the weird stuff in Rome. What isn't a good thing is how Rome 2 will probably need a top of the range computer to run properly - and that's gone eat up your bank account. Imagine this though, Shogun 2's graphics but with Romans instead of samurai (these are all in game screenshots) - Here's some Rome Total War graphics for comparison - By the time Rome 2 will have come out the graphics will have improved beyond Shogun 2. I can't wait to see how it looks. Hopefully the weapons and armour will be accurate.

My avatar is a coin of the Roman emperor Diocletain, who instigated major political reforms to the Roman Empire in AD 284. I've been meaning to change it for a while now.

There's an interesting looking documentary about a similar subject called Into Eternity. It deals with modern nuclear waste and the construction of a huge nuclear dumping ground in Finland. The site has been made to last a 100,000 years, presenting the builders with a challenge and a dilemma. How on earth do you build something to last so long, and how do you keep future treasure hunters from stumbling across the toxic material? This involves creating signs and symbols for future humans who might not even speak any recognisable language, or communicate in a way we'd understand. The project will take generations to complete. Here's a trailer -

The only thing I can think of is the Expansion to Rome Total War (You said you have the first one) called Barbarian Invasion. That contains the Sassanids as a playable faction. It isn't very accurate though. There are a few low budget Roman strategy games such as Legion Arena (2005) and Praetorians (2003). I've played the Legion Arena demo, but I enjoyed Praetorians; although it's very simplistic compared to Rome Total War. It also doesn't feature the Sassanids, although the Parthians feature in some levels. I doubt there's much games that cover the wars between the Sassanids and the Romans. As a matter of fact there isn't much games at all about late antiquity.

Like Caldrail has mentioned, I believe the Romans were best suited to fighting formal battles on a plain open area. There are certainly examples of some Roman generals successfully defeating guerillas. One example would be Ostorius Scapula's campaigns against British guerrillas led by Caratacus during the AD 40s. One thing the Romans needed to do was to harass the enemy so that they gathered to fight the Roman army on the Roman's terms. That way they could easily defeat them. This is what Scapula did against the Britons when he had the guerrillas holed up at a hillfort - their base of operations. When the Romans couldn't achieve this goal they usually became stuck. One example would have to be Septimius Severus's campaign against the Picts. This campaign ground to a halt because the Picts refused to face the Romans in open battle, instead they ambushed the marching columns then retreated. Despite Severus having a much larger and superior force he had no choice but to retreat out of Caledonia. I think like most professional armies through history, the Romans struggled to deal with guerrillas.

I hope you had a great day GPM!

Happy Birthday Bryaxis, I hope you enjoyed your day yesterday.

I think there's a certain truth to what Kosmo is saying. I've been reading books recently about Medieval Europe, and one thing that constantly pops up is how Knights and noblemen had a far greater allegiance to their class than to their country. This is reflected in Chivalry. During the Hundred Year's War French Knights showed greater respect, kindness and courteousness to English Knights than to their own lower class countrymen. If anything, chivalry stressed the importance of keeping lower classes down, while mainting strong bonds with members of your own class. These bonds stretched beyond national borders. Henry V's call to execute surrendered French Noble Knights at Agincourt in 1415 disgusted his contemporaries because he had called upon the peasant archers to do the deed. A few years later when Henry tried to organise a Crusade, many of his contemporaries brought this up as an example of his lack of fitness to command. On the other hand, Richard II's violent suppression of his own countrymen's peasant revolt in 1381, was praised by writers at the time, as it was seen as a 'just cause' that noblemen should slaughter their revolting lower class countrymen, even if they had already surrenderd, as the Peasant's had done at Smithfield.