WotWotius

Christianity offered an afterlife, whereas the Roman State religion only offered its followers a post-funeral residence in the Halls of Hades--the world of the dead where most wandered as dull shadows among fields of asphodel acting out the movements of their mortal life. This would probably explain why Christianity was so popular amongst ordinary people during the early Empire. If you were poor city dwelling Christian with nothing going for you, things could only get better in heaven. However, if you were in the same situation but believed in the Roman State religion, the religion would dictate that your crappy existence would remain crappy in the afterlife.

I suppose I should conform to peer pressure and go for York (hopefully my newfound job will pay for a train ticket).

well im glad thats sorted out Damn right!

So I take it nobady wants to meet in Londinium anymore.

This Centurion Shield may be of interest to some of you. And if you look carefully at the image below (taken from Trajan's Column), you will see a centurion hold an oval sheild.

I hail from the mean streets of Leicester: home of Daniel Lambert, The Elephant Man and David Ikle (so the fact one, the ugly one and the crazy one). Though my dad is Polish, so I am half Slavonic.

Upon playing the game again (this time trying out the online multiplayer mode), I came to the realisation that my initial assessment might have been a little harsh. ...playing real people is much more fun than the single player: there are enough siegcrafts, navel vessels and needless explosions to keep me happy for hours. Oh, and as for the game being unhistorical, that is not really a problem for me, fun is still fun whether or not its realistic. So to sum up: multiplayer=fun singleplayer=boring

Does anybody have any information on the Mithraeum found in Leicester? I googled the words Leicester and Mithrea, and it was almost a google wack.

There is also a game to go alongside the film.

This is indeed true, but when his century was in tight formation he would more or less be on the sidelines giving the orders. My apologies, for I have just realised how incoherent this statement is--I only got two hours sleep last night...damn that Who Wants to be a Millionaire marathon. Anyway, what I meant to say is that if the Centurion was in the thick of battle, he would probably be at the side of his formation while fighting and giving orders. And as he is on the side, he would have more space to manoeuvre, meaning that there would be not need for him to wear his gladius on his right.

I recognise that, is it the tombstone for a Thracian cavalry auxiliary? Correct , with all the stylised ritualistic elements included, (most obviously the defeated pictish enemy), but also the formulaic "head" of the stone showing the deities, ( and sometimes the person themselves at a banquet with the deities). I thought the tombstone was dated to the Claudian period. If this were true, why would auxiliary be subduing a pictish warrior? Were they not to be defeated in a later period of Romano-British history, or did you just mean pictish as in a 'painted' Celt?

Thats a very good point, in fact you'd expect a lot of spear armed "lightweights" with saex as a personal side arm and the "toffs" with good quality longswords. The saex was available in every conceivable size, from food knife to "something for the weeekend raid". True. You would also expect to see the poorest celts armed with slings and various other skirmish weapons.

I recognise that, is it the tombstone for a Thracian cavalry auxiliary?

I dipped into a book that I have on classical warfare (great toilet reader by-the-way), and I have summed what little it had to say on the matter. Excavations at Alesia show that Polybius' claim may be unfounded as many of the Gallic swords found there were made of high-quality iron, and seemed to be extremely effectual weapons.

He could still be in the thick of combat if he was at the sideline of the formation. Not necessarily, many military tombstones have been found in Britain hundreds of miles away from the person which they commemorate. I think it was only really the higher ranks of the military that received the honour of being buried in their birthplace.

Polybius also coments on the effectivness of Celtic swords: '...they (the swords) are effective only at the first blow; thereafter they are blunt and bent so the warrior has not time to wedge it against the ground and straighten it with his foot, the second blow is quite ineffective.'

This is indeed true, but when his century was in tight formation he would more or less be on the side giving the orders. Where was the tombstone found?

When a typical Celtic entered the battlefield he was more than likely to arrive with a sword. However, unlike the Roman gladius these swords were much larger (roughly 90cm), and were designed primarily for slashing any unfortunate individual to get in its way. Though what I would like to know is whether or not these swords were effective on the battlefield; surely its user would have to have plenty of space to manoeuvre in order to use them to the fullest capacity. What are your thoughts?

Additionally, the officers wearing their gladius' on the left would most probably be out of the formation giving the orders.

I believe the reason for wearing the Gladius on the right was simple. When advancing in tight formation, legionaries would have very little 'personally space' to manoeuvre in, therefore if a legionary unsheathed his sword on the right hand side he would evidently take less space, and would not get in the way of his neighbour: elbows etc. may cause trouble if the gladius was drawn from the left.

Ok, I have another question regarding armour: when was the hilt added to the cranial part of legionary helmets? I read somewhere that hilted helmets became standard issue along the Danube frontier during the late Augustan period as it provided protection against the Thracian flax. Is this true?

But Vandals met Roman resistance in Spain...

When exactly did segmenta substitute chain mail as the standard armour of the legionary?

Seneca was Nero's tutor, I think, not Gaius's. He was I believe exiled, then pardoned by Claudius. I seem to remember being critical of the Claudian regime upon the ascension of Nero. This is indeed true. Seneca, for Nero's amusement and to satisfy his own personal grudge, wrote a pamphlet on Claudius' fate after death, entitled 'The Gourdifaction of the Defied Claudius'. The title itself was a pun, meaning that although Claudius was declared a god, all he was really fit for was to become a gourd, a flavourless, hollow vegetable similar to a pumpkin.

I have had a quick play around with R+F, and it does not seem to be anything new. Sure, the heroes (including Julius Caesar with a magic bow!??) are fun to play with, but the game just struck me as a second-rate version of Warcraft III with a hint of classical history. As this was apparent, came off as being a bit pedestrian. But hey, a free game is a free game.