Pertinax

the sequence seems to be -"celtic" monastic literacy as the only light of learning in the darkest of times followed by the court of the King of Franks especially with the impetus of his (debatable) crowning as Holy Roman Emperor. I suggest that literacy is "liberating" as an end in itself ,therefore the peripatetic nature of (mostly)non-literate culture has a twofold problem-impermanence (no tendency to urbanisation and an art expressed totally in ornament) and no ability to consider the abstract. I say this on the suggested argument that urbanisation is the key to Roman "order" and civilisation. Thats a horribly short summary of several hundred years and some monumental social changes The critical factor being the power of the King to disseminate the copied works across Europe-the Celtic monks had struggled to maintain the precious words and di dnot have the "upfront" regal power to push the books as courtly gifts to men of power. edit: I just wish to add , bear in mind that even Charlegmane merely reused the shells of surviving Roman buildings, rebuilding in wood not stone whilst "Byzantium" strode on as a literate , monumental power.

I was speaking only with a "Great British " hat on, I dont think we have any evidence that the province was taken out of its "theatre" context at any time (by Rome itself), especially not in the context of the Imperium Gallorum and the potential threat of a "sufficient body" of motivated men to make a bid for Rome.Though interestingly the commander of the classis had the best paid fleet posting for his equivalent rank in the whole Empire.

PP may be near to something here, namely Charlegemane and his Librarian ,Alfred of York, and the struggle via "knowledge" to re-connect the West to the "lost Centre" of learning from the classical world.The collecting and copying of Latin texts begun by the King is the source of the great majority of the works that have come down to us for study.And this at a time when virtually everyone( ..including Charlegmane )was unable to read.(.he did try , but said he couldnt get the hang of it.) and not just for one or two generations , several hundreds of years

Hello and Welcome Dr. Keaveney Lucullus is a figure who "drops under the radar" to non-Romanophiles, would you care to name any other particular figures whose life and works you would consider "unsung" and worthy of our greater attention?

The battle which appeared to settle the fate of Britain , but which has been overshadowed by a more popularly notable date 130 years later.Lowland Britain was under the Wessex kings, but the peripheral areas had hopes of independence,an amalgam of strange political allies emerged, petty kings whose domains encircled the Irish Sea. Mercenary soldiery fought on both sides with various degrees of moral probity.The slaughter of the "peripheral" kingdoms nobility was vast. The only problem is the supposed location-many areas in the Northern Pennines lay claim to the possible site, I am about a mile and a half away from one such ,the ridge at Cliviger between modern W Yorks and NE Lancs. I wondered if other members would care to furish information on possible sites for the conflict.

I have got hold of a copy of this recent work at the Ribchester museum http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...9931322-1950335 as the authour says this is a topic which has been only narrowly explored, I am part way into the text, and it is a most helpful addittion to the understanding of the strategic activities of the Claudian invasion. One assumes conqeust by Legion with some supply backup work and a little amphibious sortie in certain areas , this is not the case it transpires. More to follow when I have completed the text. note: the only rather deflating topic is that it appears to be Boulogne that was the HQ for the Classis!

I anticipate Vin Diesel will personally trample a couple of Legions, with his own special elephant , which will later die in a heart rending scene, (whilst he gives a speech about bio-diversity).

Scipio looked familiar but I cant name him-his part was underwritten and I got the impression he could have been good if given something to sink his teeth into but ,like Hannibal, he was more of a pivot for the action without much beyond surface development of charachter.

I am not alone: the newspaper reviews seem to come to the conclusion that the production was "curiously flat" , and point out that the CGI was good (widescreen) -plenty of crazed elephants, but switching to live action a handful of smaller and rather less numerous beasts were seen. THe plotting ws odd , Hannibal's suicide was very low key and his long exile as sort of dull coda to the whole thing.

No they wouldnt! Moonlapse's last blog "I concur" is just as relevant here. I think the Isle of Man is still ok though.

Just finished watching "Hannibal" (BBC version) , my verdict would be " quite reasonable". The story is told reasonably well. A good basic guide without frills, the battle scenes are the usual "corpse in water" if your budget isnt too big, the look of the film is good (costumes/weathering) Where charachterization was attempted it was not bad . Kenneth Cranham (Pompey from HBO) did the voiceover and was a good narrator. Split screen is best left to Sam Peckinpah and not used as a device to make the story "dramatic"-its ok if James Coburn is assaulting a mortar position in the Crimeabut was out of context here.CGI where used (Zama) looked ok. If its available watch it , but dont break a leg to switch the TV on.

Virgil has said this elsewhere "fix and flank" to defeat a phalanx-so I suppose "fix and hold" ( before commiting reserves) would do quite well, also remember the constant factor of the liquidity of Roman mounted auxilliae as a "tipping point" influence when sent into assault at the appropriate moment.A phalanx is , I suppose, like a crab -get in past the primary armament and you can turn the whole beast.

I was wondering about this very thing, but in a more abstract way-in fact its so abstract im not sure its an articulate point-what was the Persian world view? What was their consciousness in relative standing to the Romans? Were they as firmly centered in notions of law/religious certitude and martial excellence? Did they have an Imperial mind set? This was something I was going to put forward in the " ask the expert " arena but I feared that it was too tenuous a topic...any Parsii/Persian/Iranian experts out there? I have a longstanding fascination with the Clibanarius as a pre-Medieval "knightly" figure in terms of prestige/honour in a clan setting. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...&cmd=si&img=575

We have just got a copy of this masterpiece from the recent past http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B...9931322-1950335 it is absolutely pertinent to this particular thread, and indeed to much of our various discussions.I will report when I have watched more.

Titus-well how to put this? It is yet another good play about power and morality , if Kurosawa had transplanted it to Japan ( Ran=King Lear) then the "exotic" change of location and period would seem wholly reasonable and rational.This performance jars on the European/American psyche a little but Hopkins is good-you believe he is Titus , the modern touches are perhaps too flash , but ravishingly done. Best to see if it looks like pretentious twaddle in 10 years time. Its about Romans and power but not especially so, anyone and power would do , Shakespeare just gave it a roman setting. therefore I dont suggest its a good Romanophile purchase as it has no real period feel (unless MP Cato thinks otherwise as regards the politics.....) .

A thought (on which perhaps Virgil may have detailed contemporary knowledge), for any particular trained,fighting cohort what is the likely "combat effective lifetime" (outside of disaster of course) -so over what period does a trained legion become a degraded entity? I realise that unit replenishment and recruiting should mean that any cohort will be effective constantly, but I am trying to hint at what happens when such a renewal process halts? How long can an "ageing" cohort remain combat ready?

May I add a small point? I am struck by the universality of Auxilliae in Brittania at all periods of Roman occupation, I am aware that a backbone of Legions was present but the Auxilliae (certainly at command level) seem to demonstrably "buying into" all things Roman (maybe with a few dietary variants).So I assume that "barbarization" means "foreign non-Italic/non-Romans " not " uncouth irregulars"? I certainly understand the principle of employing warlike peoples to one's own advantadge, to keep them busy and supress the most uncouth of provincials.