WotWotius

Below I have come up with a few more reason as to why it took so long to conquer Wales. The area of Wales could be perceived as a valuable addition to the Roman Empire. It had large reserves of both copper and slate: though these were not exactly glamorous resources, they were still highly useful for industry. Gold was also rumoured to be present in the province (however, in reality in was in much shorter supply). When Claudius received the submission of 11 British Kings (the famous

This has got to be the worst British rapper ever. His rhymes are so bad, it's hilarious. http://www.myspace.com/mcdevvo His music contains bad lanugage...and very bad grammer enjoy.

Ok thank you for your help Pertinax. I'll sure i'll do fine in my exam tomorrow.

bah!!! Poland were so close...

This pre-battle adlocutio speech is almost definitely a fabrication of Tacitus

I love Robert Plants lyric for Babe i'm Gonna Leave You: 'Baby i'm gonna leave you' 'Babe i don't wanna leave you' Bloody hell, make your mind up! I was going to say a concise point, but i've forgotten what I was going to say...oh yeah, ZEPPELIN RULE!

Ave I have been a UNRV member for a while now, but have only just found this place. I am currently at college studying various types of history. I intend to go to Exeter Uni to study BA Archaeology and Ancient History. Other than history my other passion is music (performing, composing and listening). I also like to party like it was 1884!!! Wooo!

My favourite example of politcal correctness occoured when the "understanding" 'ageing-hippy, namby-pamby, liberal-lefty' governors from my college tried to stop teachers from using the term brainstrom as it apparently offended epileptics. I know this is a very clich

Could you also say that Strabo was writing at a time of British non-interference? Augustus mentions in the Res Gestae that two British Kings (Tincommius and .........?) sought Rome's protection, but Augutsus did nothing to reinstate them; this is strange as exiled kings provided excellent 'official' reasons for both Caligula's famous 'British expedition' (seashell incident), and Claudius' invasion. Furthermore, the imperial poet Horace

Thank you for you help. Would you mind helping me with the question below? I think i'm ok for this paper, but I would like to here your view on the question. The reason for posting such questions is that I need to get an A in order to get into Uni, so i'm at little worried seeing as the exam is in 2 days. "For although they could have held even Britain, the Romans scorned to do so, because they saw that there was nothing at all to fear from the Britons (for they are not strong enough to cross p447over and attack us), and that no corresponding advantage was to be gained by taking and holding their country. For it seems that at present more revenue is derived from the duty on their commerce than the tribute could bring in, if we deduct the expense involved in the maintenance of an army for the purpose of guarding the island and collecting the tribute; and the unprofitableness of an occupation would be still greater in the case of the other islands about Britain." "The Deified Caesar crossed over to the island twice, although he came back in haste, without accomplishing anything great or proceeding far into the island, not only on account of the quarrels that took place in the land of the Celti, among the barbarians and his own soldiers as well,148 but also on account of the fact that many of his ships had been lost at the time of the full moon, since the ebb-tides and the flood-tides got their increase at that time.149 However, he won two or three victories over the Britons." Strabo 2, 5, 8 and 4, 5, 3 "The deified Julius, the very first Roman who entered Britain with an army, though by a successful engagement he struct terror into the inhabitants and gained possession of the coast, must be regarded as having indicated rather than transmitted the acquisition to future generations." Tacitus, Agricola 13 a ) To what extent are these accounts of Strabo and Tacitus consistent with Caesar's own account of his campaigns in Britain? b ) On the basis of these passages and your own knowledge and understanding, consider how far the views of the writers describing the campaigns of 55 and 54BC may have been influenced by the circumstances of their own time.

At the moment I am currently revising for my Ancient History A-level (mainly Roman Britain), and I was wondering if anybody could help me with the past question below. I'm alright with a), but b ) is so badly worded I cannot make much sense of of it. All help would be very much appreciated. "Boudicea, with her daughters before her in a chariot, went up to tribe after tribe, protesting that it was indeed usual for Britons to fight under the leadership of women. "But now," she said, "it is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged body, the outraged chastity of my daughters. Roman lust has gone so far that not our very persons, nor even age or virginity, are left unpolluted. But heaven is on the side of a righteous vengeance; a legion which dared to fight has perished; the rest are hiding themselves in their camp, or are thinking anxiously of flight. They will not sustain even the din and the shout of so many thousands, much less our charge and our blows. If you weigh well the strength of the armies, and the causes of the war, you will see that in this battle you must conquer or die. This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves." Tacitus, Annals [14.35] a) How accurate do you conisder Tacitus' presentation of the feeling of the Britons towards the Romans to be? b ) On the basis of this passage and your own knowledge and understanding, discuss how far Roman authors present the views of Britons towards the Romans impartially and reliably.

Plus the loyalty of Bolanus' troops may have been questionable: each legion could have supported different candidate for the troubles of 69AD. Additionally the legions of Britain at that time had participated in a series of mutinies. One in AD69 was so bad that XXVV legion (commanded by the renegade legate, Rocius Coelius) ousted Bolanus

The Union of Naughty Romanophile Vixens. Or at least I can dream.

That maybe, but the rome toal realsim mod is far supperior. http://www.rometotalrealism.org/ sorry if sombody has mentioned RTR, i can't bothered to read the entire thread. oh you have.

Yeah, if your average julio-claudian arrived in modern times, the would probably be shoked by the lack of decadence. Though they may feel at home in Amsterdam

I believe Urgulanilla recieves a bad press because of her name. A while back I mentioned the name to a friend who has no idea who she is (like all the cool kids do), and the first thing that came to her mind was a brute with hairy arms and one eyebrow.

You may be thinking of Pytheas, a Greek from Marseille (Massilia), who explored Britain and the Baltic c.330 BC and went on to 'Thule', six days' sailing from northern Britain (possibly Iceland?). The Carthaginians did have some sort of prsence in Britain. This statment is based on the findings of Phoenician in South Cornwall. I also have some examples of Roman exploration. 1) It is mentioned in the Agricola that a fleet was ordered to navigate the entire circumference of Britain. 2) There is also a coastal sight in Ireland with a walled enclosure (roughly the size of a auxilary fort) containing coins from the time of Vespasian-Trajan. It may have been a trading post. 3) Augustus' Res Gestae makes a reference to envoys from India arriving in Rome...maybe the Roman did the same thing in India.

It is probably blatantly obvious, but what exactlt does UNRV stand for?

OK, Why did it take so long for the Romans to conquor Wales?

There is even evidence to suggest that during the years AD 69-71, under the governorship of Vettius Bolanus, the Romans penetrated beyond Brigantia. A poem written by Statius, presented to Bolanus' son mentions that Bolanus took an army as far as '...the plains of Caledonia (Scotland)'. However, despite this evidence Tacitus fails to mention this campaign, and is highly critical of Bolanus' character, describing him as having an 'innocuous' personality (Agricola). The only military achievement Tacitus credits him with is rescuing Queen Catimandua from the civil war in her kingdom against her husband Venutius: and even then he only mentions 'indecisive engagements' (Histories). Why did Tacitus not mention the Campaign? 1) Tacitus dislikes Bolanus immensely; he fails to mention his campaign in Caledonia because doesn't want an achievement put to his name. 2) In his book, The Agricola, Tacitus says that Agricola was the first governor to reach Scotland. Seeing as Agricola was the father-in-law of Tacitus, Tacitus probably didn't want Bolanus to steal his thunder by mentioning that a previous governor was there 10 years earlier. The validiety of the Poem 1) The reference to Caledonia may be geographical error on Statius' part. I am assuming the average Roman poet knew very little about the geography of recently conquered territory (kinda like the Americans with Iraq). 2) Tacitus also mentions that Venutius summoned help from outside his kingdom; the poem could be referring to how Bolanus fought against Caledonian mercenaries. 3) If we are to believe Tacitus, the state of the army at this time was in no fit state to reach Scotland: Various emperors during the civil war of 69AD had summoned detachments of British legion to aid them. Further, Britain, under her previous governor, had suffered from a series of mutinies.

I don't mean to pedantic, but isn't it Phythias of Marseille.

Not all Roman viewed barbarians as mindless savages; some writers even had a slight admiration of the barbaric lifestyle. For example, the Greek philosopher Posidonius once declared that 'Barbarism was mans' natural state' which basically means that living simple lives away from the corruptions of the big cities is a very admirable way to live. This probably gave rise to the idea of the 'noble savage': a person who had not been suduced by the Roman way of life so was therefore seen as a better person. The idea of the noble savage is present in other literary sources too. For instance, throughout the Agicola, Tacitus constantly implies that the life style of the native Britons is simple but virtuous. This is epecially present in the Adlocutio speech of Boudica (probably made up by Tacitus, thus furthering the idea of the noble savage) written in the Annals whereby the Britons are depicted as brave but oppressed, upstanding, austere creatures. The Roman on the other hand are portrayed as toga claded, purfume wearing servants of a ladies man (Nero) who have been enslaved by their lifstyles. It seems strange that there is so much self hatred in Roman litrature. However, the vast majority of Romans would have felt superior to their barbarian niegbours, as the idea of their divine right to conquor anything they surveyed (and beyond!) was so ingrained into their psychies. For this we have Virgil to thank: '...I set upon the Romans no limit of space and time. I have bestowed upon them an empire without end.' (Jupiter speaking to venus on Mt Olympus). This view resulted in the Romans placing foreigners into two catgories. The first being GENS SUBIECTI: defeated people who recognise Rome's rule and therefore should be taxed, but not disrepected. The second being GENS SUPERBI: proud people who resist Roman dominence and should be suquently wiped off the map--an act that the Romans felt no guilt in doing. For instance, the divine peacful Emperor Marcus Aurelius didn't even bat an eyelid when he ordered the mass genoside of certain Sarmatian tribes. Julius Ceasar even boasted!! about how many foreigners he killed in his Gallic campaign '...i killed a million and enslaved a million...'

Very true...and if i havn't already said it, isn't Borris great. Despite how he appears, he does actually know what he's talking about as he studied classics and Latin at uni.

Tacitus was not a great fan of Emperors. Though this doesn't surpise me as he served 15 years (?) under the rule of Domitian and like many senators at that this time he would have been in constant fear for his life. Evidence for this contempt for Domitian is present in The Agricola where in the early chapters he disscusses the oppression and lack of free thinking that too place during the emperor's rule. Tacitus then incorporated this dislike of emperors into his later works; in the Annals he even ridicules great Emperor like Augustus saying that '...he suduced the public with the delights of people and corn...bribed senators'* etc. Though this isn't complete ridicule, the tone in which he writes it is very negetive. Furthermore, if you read between the lines in his work on Augustus you will see that from the lanuage he uses, he is implying that Augustus is a tyrant who used his great wealth and powerful position to keep control, as oposed to the personal authority which is mentioned in the Res Gestae. *btw these quotes have been taken from memory, so they may not be completly right...but you get the idea.

I've started to write an essay on the imprtance of traditional Roman relgion and am find it hard. Do you have any pionters about what i have done so far... How useful is the archaeological evidence in assessing the importance of traditional Roman religion in the city during the period 33BC-117AD? Religion has always played a major role in all of the great civilisations; whether you are looking at a small Roman shrine, or a great Aztec temple, you will always find that religion has great. In this essay I will be looking at just how important traditional Roman religion to her citizens, and whether the remaining Roman religious buildings show this. So, what exactly did the Romans believe in? Rome