Leaderboard

I went to the #LegionExhibition in London last week. As the name suggests, the exhibition is very much focused on the Roman military, and specifically during the Principate (spanning 27 BC - AD 284). There were some terrific artefacts on show - my favourite being the crocodile armour! But the smartest thing about the exhibition, in my opinion, was how they threaded it all together using the career records of an Egyptian legionary named Claudius Terentianus. A papyrus archive found at Karanis, Egypt, contained several letters Claudius had written and sent home to his family. They reveal how he tried and failed to join the legions in AD 110, thanks to a lack of satisfactory references. So, he instead joined the marines - a less prestigious and lucrative career path. His duties would have included building roads and guarding the grain fleet harbours as well as long and hazardous sea voyages. The letters tell of very practical and human things - his struggles to fit in with his marine colleagues, his need for new shoes and socks, and of his injuries sustained when fighting to supress a revolt. He was deployed in the east for a time, likely in Emperor Trajan's war against Rome's rival superpower, Parthia. Having proved himself he finally achieved his goal and was permitted to join the legions! Here's a couple of photos (of Augustus, and of the Dura Europos shield!) Full gallery with commentary is on my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/GordonDohertyAuthor/posts/pfbid02AqWchBNFauQHLTcK3QSCTLCxziY67inptoe68vHwr1jPAzA9jHXNALNh8ZXW2C6gl

https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/ven-byzantine- sez (embolded by me): I am a Venice fanatic but not so much the Byz angle (St Mark etc) so may be a contra-indicator for you. I found Murano and Torcello islands painfully blah. Pay attention to ferry schedule for Torcello; you may have to commit to a very short or long wait for the return. Stopover in Burano which is super cute, if well over the top. They have/had coin bathrooms with no change made at the time. Mosto and Turchi facades go by fast on a waterbus, so maybe look for viewpoints from other side of canal. One is a hotel and the other a zoolog museum, so visiting may have complications. I normally love museums, but in Venice I only find the huge Maritime museum inspiring. Nobody visits there, and the staff tries to herd everyone out way before the 1:30 closing, but you may find Byz cannons or whatever. Consider a quick excursion to Padua for mosaics, etc. The charming neighborhoods in Venice are Dorsoduro (SW) and Castello (NE). The famous walk of train station - Rialto bridge - San Marco is a cattle drive horror show punctuated by pigeon poop. To get from west to east walk the alternate route of bus station - Academy bridge and onward; that's what Italian commuters do. Venice has the worst food in Italy since it has negligible Italian customers. Instead of tourist gelato which tastes like shaving cream with food coloring, get sorbetto tailored to more refined taste. Instead of stockpiled wet cardboard pizza slices, order a whole pie with gourmet ingredients they have to prepare for you. Above all, wander around at dawn and night when daytripper hordes are gone.

Sensationalism sells. "locked in?"- they don't mention a collapsed roof. Maybe they just haven't uncovered a door yet. There must have been a way to bring in food, fodder and to evacuate manure, not to mention the finished bread. How did they get the men & animals in there in the first place? How many modern bakeries have windows to provide a view for workers?... Did the skeletons have chains on the limbs? Were donkey skeltons found? Blindfolds or just blinders like modern working equines use? Hollywood has given us a false impression of the life of ancient slaves. Slaves were in all likelihood treated more like we today treat our working animals- horses, hunting or sled dogs, etc--- We may not let them sleep in our beds like Zza Zza and her lap dog, but we feed them well and don't mistreat them either. But the excavations at Pompeii give us such a fortuitous opportunity to gain insight into the daily life two millennia ago. With the exception of powered machinery, practically everything we have and do today had its counterpart in ancient Rome.

This mini series begins tomorrow night, April 2nd, at 9pm, on our PBS station. According to this link, it was made in 2023. Perhaps others have watched it already. Looks like it might be interesting. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30272530/

I didn't enjoy this as much as I thought I would. Right from the beginning, it had a certain modern day political vibe to it. Subtle messages throughout. Those were done well, but overall not a good production - my opinion anyway.

The road discovered is thought to be a crossroads with the Via Domitia, which was the Roman road that linked Italy with Hispania through Southern France. The remains were discovered between the two roads: In Ancient Rome the cemeteries were traditionally located outside of the religious boundaries (pomerium) of towns and cities. Tombs and elaborate burial monuments lined the roadsides. Burial graves and monuments along the Appian Way near Rome

I think phase 2 will be a spectacular win, linking the under visited Circus Maximus to under visited Baths of Caracalla to u. v. Via Appia. I think we discussed the Darya video on how the isolated new Map museum and sculpture garden is included too. Nobody but me makes the horrible walk between these relatively adjacent sites due to multi-lane fast roads, industrial vibe where you can hardly buy a hydrating drink, and poor signage/sidewalks/crosswalks. I hate the logistics and loss of context using wheeled travel instead. Phase 1 could turn out intrusive, but I think taps into the less busy side of the coliseum towards the weird grassy hill east side of the Forum. Not many go there since you can't see what's ahead and whether it is worth the climb; I stumbled around there only because of the new Nero dining room excavation, which I found practically deserted. It would be a plus even relieving pressure on the coliseum by offering alternative strolls. Crossing thru the Palace area to the racetrack could be intrusive, but folks need a little guidance there anyway because it isn't obvious you can get thru the palaces to the racetrack. It is such a maze that on my first visit back when the forum was free, I found myself walking on an exquisite decorated floor all wavy and fragile with poor options to avoid it or back off. It's not clear where the route will go due to the articles having paywalls, etc but I think phase 1 generally doesn't intrude except to give guidence in areas where there is a lot of random congestion and confusion. I include a picture that falsely looks intrusive, but depicts almost no change to the recent practice of closing off the horrible road Mussolini plowed thru the Forum. I would rather Via dei Fori Imperiali be torn out and excavated, but shutting out vehicle traffic with a few niceties seems fine: Other anecdotes: Now you can be walking quite close to the massive Baths of Caracalla and not see it. I made a rare exception and asked directions which just confused things since I accented the wrong syllable into gibberish. I looked for a street sign for a major road branching off another major one to shortcut to Via Appia, with absolutely none in sight in the industrial wasteland deprived of pedestrians. Another shortcut was super narrow and twisty with fast traffic barely scraping brick walls and each other with side mirrors. I was like a hunted animal who couldn't see when to creep thru the rubble safely. The only foot traffic was a couple stunning blondes walking with just wisps of clothing and cheap flip flops. Unlike me, they could obliviously walk in traffic lanes because the drivers stopped on a dime to stare. Ah, so much more I could pass on...

It looks like modern biker chicks descended from Scythian women....Tattoos were of course a customary practice from the earliest times. Otzti the Bolzano Ice Man had them 5000 yrs ago....Internalizing a vanquished foe by drinking his blood or eating his heart also is more ancient than the Scythians. It was a practice still in vogue among the Amerindians when first encountered by Europeans. We moderns should avoid judging the ancients by our own standards of morals and conduct.

Here is a malaria map of Italy 1882 but the hotspot returned in the 1940s when Germans sabotaged drainage canals from the Roman thru Mussolini era in deliberate biological warfare. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontine_Marshes for this swamp shaping the location of Via Appia, and how pre Mussolini: So for south of Rome it was solved in the 1930s, backfired cruelly in the 1940s, and: After benefiting from DDT tough love, the first world scaremongered third world countries out of even one time eradications.

Hi, new here, I am interested in the Aeneid, Punic wars and Latin language.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, publishing just a few years before Livy, gives a much more detailed, academic version of the founding of Rome than does Livy. He states variations of the story presented by various authors, and gives a thoughtful analysis of them, admitting the difficulty in separating facts from myths about such remote times. One gets the impression from Livy that the famous wolf cared for the babies for quite a while before Faustulus discovered them, but Dion- makes it sound like Faust- & the wolf came upon them at almost the same time.... Both authors admit the story of The Wolf (Lupa in Latin) probably is more of a reference to the social behavior of Faustulus' wife Laurentia, who wound up raising the kids as her own...Cf- our use of the "B" word or more recently the term "Cougar" to describe certain women. But it does make for a nice story and a good excuse to sell cheap trinkets as souvenirs. I wonder if that brooch was made in China?

Right, Guy. Solar installations require extensive concrete foundations, access roads and continuing traffic for cleaning & maintenance. They essentially "pave over" acres & acres of natural habitat, irreparably disrupting the ecosystem. The mining & processing of the raw materials are done in countries without environmental regulations and devastate the countryside & ecosystems in those countries. Wind & solar installations have only a 20 yr useful lifespan and disposal of the materials is an environmental nightmare....The wind mills chop up birds & insects while the solar panels fry them.... We will politely ignore the social concerns of using poorly paid children and slaves to do the mining of the raw materials in China & The Congo. ..To make it worse, they do nothing at all good for the environment. Co2 is a minor factor in the planet's energy balance at the concentrations we see now- and getting less important as levels go up-- please educate yourself as to the concept of "Extinction of Absorption" and the exponential effects of absorption.... We should want to raise co2 levels. Higher co2 levels are a factor in the greening of the planet, serving as "air fertilizer." Greenhouse growers add co2 (to a level of 2000ppm vs 420ppm in the ambient atmosphere) to increase photosynthetic productivity. BTW- to get his back to Roman history-- Around 250 BC, Hannibal lost half his men and all but one of his elephants thanks to the cold weather in The Alps. Two hundred years later, Caesar, an astute observer & describer of natural history in his Commentaries, never once mentions ice or snow despite having crossed back & forth from Cisalpine Gaul to Transalpine Gaul several times during that period....With Alpine glaciers now receding, they are leaving uncovered trees dating from Caesar's time. These obviously grew in much warmer times than the present climate conditions. It's all natural and there's nothing we can do about it. Ask King Canute.

Roman marines and maritime aspects of that special exhibit:

In this short, Max describes the difference between modern pepper and Roman pepper

I like the multiple hypotheses suggested in the video. As he said, they've found several of these so it must have been something in common usage. The rounded protrusions caught my eye immediately and reminded me of the "jacks" kids use to play Ball & Jacks. Maybe some high-end variation of "Knucklebones" commonly played by the ancients?

Oh, I just meant the principle of an elevated viewpoint to any tall vertical (or horizontal) surface . Actually that column is supposed to be viewed as almost a wall. Scholars say you don't follow the spiral but view narrative from the bottom to top from 2 nearly opposed sides. Maybe that is why I found the unraveled spiral casts at the EUR museum unsatisfying. Anyway new answers and questions from:

This complex is found built right up to the water's edge-- Pliny's villa or the world's first Sandals Resort? Minor point- the article states that Pliny died of "asphyxiation", but more likely it was from status asthmaticus induced by breathing the powdery pumice filling the air. Others around him would have died too had it really been from breathing 'poisonous air."...Pliny the Younger says his uncle was prone to frequent episodes of "closure of the windpipe" (sounds like asthma), that he was already suffering, asking for cold water supplied by others who were not suffering, and that before dying suddenly, he was being supported by two slaves as they tried to escape along the beach.... "...semel atque iterum frigidam aquam poposcit hausitque. Deinde flammae flammarumque praenuntius odor sulpuris alios in fugam vertunt, excitant illum. [19] Innitens servolis duobus assurrexit et statim concidit, ut ego colligo, crassiore caligine spiritu obstructo, clausoque stomacho qui illi natura invalidus et angustus et frequenter aestuans erat." https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.+Ep.+6.16&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0139 "...he repeatedly asked for cold water to drink. Then the flames and smell of sulphur which gave warning of the approaching fire drove the others to take flight and roused him to stand up. He stood leaning on two slaves and then suddenly collapsed, I imagine because the dense fumes choked his breathing by blocking his windpipe which was constitutionally weak and narrow and often inflamed." https://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/404b/web rdgs/pliny on vesuvius.htm Here's a fairly good summary of Pliny the Younger's letter to Tacitus, the primary source describing the Vesuvius eruption & The Elder's death at Misenum. https://www.thecollector.com/pliny-the-elder-death/

There have been many previous posts on Garum (see below), the famous fermented fish sauce of the ancient world. Max Miller has attempted to recreate (again) this unusual dish:

Suprising results from archeologists who found a thriving town from a period of crisis.... Archaeological discovery upends what we thought we knew about fall of Roman empire (msn.com)

Thank you for bringing this ongoing research to my attention about the Interamna Lirenas Project. Two aspects of this find stand out to me: First, the finding of a roofed enclosed theater was unusual in Ancient Rome. (One suggestion that this theater had a roof is the presence of gutters on the side of the building.) According to the video, there are around 100 known Greek and Roman theaters in the Peninsula of Italy, but only ten are thought to have been covered. Second, the finding of an inscribed sundial at the site was absolutely fascinating. I learned a lot about precision time keeping in Ancient Rome (both sundials and water clocks). I had never thought about it but I learned from the videos below that the Roman hour during the summer was about 80 minutes; the winter, 40 minutes. This sundial was a nice bit of self promotion. According to the video, there are 600 sundials known from Roman history. About thirty are inscribed and less than half of them have a person’s name inscribed on them. According to the video, the inscription on this sundial reads “Marcus Novius Tubula, son of Marcus, tribune of the plebs who donated this from his own funds.” This sundial dates to the end of the 1st century BCE to the start of the 1st century AD. The office of tribune at this time was held in Rome. It appears from the presence of another inscription with a similar name at Interamna Lineras that this man was probably a local benefactor. This individual possibly made a successful career in Rome and he wanted to celebrate his success with his home town. A short summary video of the find: A more thorough video on the find with emphasis on the roofed theater, numismatic finds, and the inscribed sundial. An excellent video on timekeeping in Ancient Rome.

A fragment of Roman amphora found in Spain was found to have an inscription of Virgil’s Georgics, which dealt with rural and agricultural themes. The amphora shard was initially found seven years ago, but only recently was it translated. The full passage reads: https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2023/jun/21/virgil-quote-found-on-fragment-of-roman-jar-unearthed-in-spain https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/virgil-quote-roman-jar-180982426/ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-archaeology/article/las-georgicas-de-virgilio-in-figlinis-a-proposito-de-un-grafito-ante-cocturam-sobre-un-anfora-olearia-betica/742CDE20EED6987767C896C2A1F01739

Thank you for reading my post. I must disagree, however, with some of your points. I agree, for example, that only a small population in the ancient world had any level of literacy. Among the literate (not exclusively the ruling class elite), the knowledge and familiarity of the great Latin and Greek texts was essential. Historian and numismatist Guy de la Bédoyère mentions that even soldiers were frequently at least familiar with these texts. In fact, the military character in Roman comedies was distinguished by the way he would recite quotations (see 11:30 of the video below). As you mentioned, only a few could read. The fact that the writing was on the bottom of the amphora and not easily visible means that it was probably not meant for either the merchants or consumers. Maybe the text was copied for only the amusement of the amphora manufacturer or perhaps it was written by someone to practice and perfect his Latin. Guy de la Bédoyère has done some interesting and insightful work on deciphering an inscription on the reverse of a medallion of Carausius found in the 1930s. (Carausius was the usurper who ruled Britain and Northern Gaul, coming to power in AD 286.) On the reverse of Carausius medals was “RSP” and “INPCDA.” These inscriptions were left without an adequate translation for more than a half century. In 1997 Bédoyère was able to translate the significance of this inscription through his familiarity with Virgil’s “Ecologue.” (Virgil was the Roman Augustan poet who published “Eclogues” or “Bucolics” around 39-38 BCE, more than two centuries before Carausius.) “RSR” was seen to represent as “Redeunt Saturnia Regna;’ “INPCDA” was “Iam Nova Progenies Caelo Demittitur Alto.” This passage is found in Virgil’s “Ecolgues” and means “The Saturnian kingdoms return (or The Golden Age returns), now a new generation is let down from heaven above.” (See page 189 of the article below.) Bédoyère notes that fluency and understanding of Latin and Greek were much more common even in more recent years than today. In fact, he states, “A 1689 medallion of William and Mary issued to commemorate the restoration of the church carries the reverse legend ‘Caelo delabitur alto (he comes down from the heaven above)’ a direct allusion to [Ecolgues] IV, 7.” In conclusion, our lack of familiarity with poetry little more than a century old should not cause us to underestimate the ancient appreciation of poetry several centuries old, even if only superficially. Thanks, again, for reading my post. Bedoyere_2005.pdf (mom.fr)

Hiya, Folks...Searching for something about Rome, your excellent site popped up...I've been interested in Roman history since studying Latin in school, fascinated that our modern western society is not so much based on Roman, but really a direct extension of it. Being of Italian ancestry, I take a certain pride in that. About 50 y/a, I had the opprotunity to spend some time in Italy. Many of my friends back in Chicago were recent Italian Immigrants, and while over there, I met up with one of them visitng his family in Genzano- about 25 km SE of Rome on the Appian Way. I wanted him to take me in to see The Forum...Observing the ruins in silent amazement, we stopped about half way down the Sacra Via. "Sandro," I said, "Your ancestors built this place over two thousand years ago. We're walking on the very stones that Julius Caesar walked on...The oldest thing we have in Chicago is The Water Tower, and it's barely 100 years old."...Sandro looked around pensively, soaking it up as if he'd never seen it before...."Yea," he replied. "We work slow here, but we work good."

Here is another article on the discovery: https://the-past.com/shorts/objects/inscribed-amphora-fragment/

Nice; I've brought it up before, but will add more here. I went to a glass lecture by a (technical) rep of that museum, and asked about the myth that glass is slightly fluid over the centuries. It sounds silly and he did deny it, but there is various supposed evidence out there. After the lecture he was nibbling at an appetizer table and I got more explanation on what accounts for that misleading evidence and how it applies to Roman glass. Bottom line is that the topsy-turvy Roman glass at our local museum is that way because they (or their donors) could only afford cheaper objects, not because Roman objects wilted in underground pressure and volcanic heat. Or at least our museum had other priorities than than premium Roman objects and the security they would need. The post above has slightly asymmetrical blue objects but ours just scream asymmetry. BTW, I had no idea that lecture would have a Roman connection but went because it was held in an outrageous "arabian-nights-like" mansion of the once richest women in the world. The estate hadn't finished being converted to a museum, but I got on an email list for stealth events there (no outsiders allowed to drive or walk in that neighborhood). The very rich/artistic audience showed little comprehension of the technicalities of glass, so the speaker seemed to appreciate my odd but at least on-topic line of questioning.

(title sounds backwards)

Here is a spectacular dialogue on first Punic War by maritime experts. The quality of discussion, graphics, and content are unsurpassed. Clarifies how Rome always was navy-savvy and did not have to play catchup as in the usual implausible narrative. Cartage was grappling with latest naval technology while Roman allies had exactly the same vessels on call for Rome to borrow. There are quite odd set of incentives for how fleets were financed that I don't entirely get, but also there are many sidelights into Roman culture to appreciate:

Although this is an older article, it is an interesting finding. This Egyptian document possibly bears what is thought to be Cleopatra’s only known hand writing. Below is thought to be Cleopatra's signature on an official document written by an Egyptian official. https://greekreporter.com/2023/09/20/cleopatra-handwriting-greek-word/ https://archive.archaeology.org/0101/newsbriefs/cleopatra.html

I'm Rosie and I'm riveted by Roman history from Romulus to the Rubicon and beyond... But mainly I'm a huge stan of Pompey the Great. Him and his adept, seriously overlooked and much maligned son Sextus. I'm actually writing some novels about Gnaeus, Sextus, and Pompeia (the daughter of Sextus not to be confused with his sister of the same name) I come to not praise Augustus but to bury him and his blatant propaganda that still affects us to this day!

Definitely a good choice. Retinol is the OTC compound similar to prescription Retin A. (Retinol must be first converted by skin enzymes into the active ingredient of Retin A. Retinol is much weaker, however.) Also, a good alternative is Adapalene which is just as effective as Retin A. Adapalene is now OTC, too. All these creams are effective for treating wrinkles and sun damaged skin.

This one's an oddity. A series of clips from footage recorded for the original 1937 film version of I Claudius that was never finished. Alex Korda was taking on Hollywood with some success and wanted a Roman epic, so he approached Robert Graves, but the film was very expensive and personality conflicts doomed the production.

The other day I sat down to watch a YouTube video about how Constantine the Great impacted history. Might be interesting. The academic started with a broad description of the Roman Empire, basically claiming that Augustus was an undeclared emperor and pretended that Rome was still a Republic. This is the foundation of the 'Standard Model' of Roman imperial government. I have never heard anything sound so false in all my life. Does that academic seriously expect anyone to believe that Augustus was able to fool the Romans into thinking the Republic was still in place for fifty years? In a society based on tradition and obsessed with politics and debate? Is he seriously suggesting nobody noticed? It may seem suprising that in spite of their vigilant Republicanism many members of the Italian governing class were satisfied by what seems to us a fiction. Yet the Romans, although their intense anxiety to preserve everything good in the past made them instinctively averse to open changes, had a fairly impressive record for modifying their institutions when this was necessary. The World Of Rome (Michael Grant) Okay, so why does the Republic seem like a fiction? There was no actual 'fall of the Republic', it doesn't exist in the Roman sources. It's because people like the idea Rome was ruled by emperors. It's been imposed on education since the Middle Ages based on the revisionist later writings of Roman authors and the experience of dealing with the Graeco-Roman Byzantines. Take Augustus himself. Paterculus gushes in praise and reminds us that Augusts was the saviour of the Republic. Yet five hundred years later Zosimus dismisses Augustus as an absolute monarch who abolished the aristocracy. This reflects changes in Roman culture during the imperial era, not the career of Augustus. But not everyone is so blinded by the Standard Model. The overwhelming importance of tradition in Roman society is a warning for the historian tempted to consider Roman history in terms of turning points and separate periods. Persistent obsession with tradition fosters continuity even within a broad framework of change. In other words, while the terms 'Republic' and 'Principate' suggest separation and change, we should expect continuity, mitigating and to an extent denying this change. It is not only that the Republic conditioned the Principate: it also continued into the Principate - The Legacy of the Republic (David C Braund) from The Roman World (Ed. John Wacher) Also, rather than using the word 'birth', we should perhaps speak of emergence, since the features of the Augustan monarchy that were adopted by its successors took shape gradually, bit by bit, within the Republican institutional edifice. For the Principate was not created ex nihilo, but put slowly into position using existing forms, and following no preconceived plan but, rather, added to and modified according to circumstance... - A History of Rome (Le Glay, Voisin, & Le Bohec) I actually go further. It hasn't escaped my attention that the Romans still referred to their state as SPQR, Senatus Populous Que Romans (Senate and People of Rome) right to the end in the west in 476, which is an arbitrary date based on the takeover launched by Odoacer as he became King of Italy. The Senate may have been functionally powerless in the Dominate (the later Roman imperial period) but they still represented traditional authority, and rather than the imperatores (Victorious Generals) simply admit they had become monarchs, they required senatorial acceptance, awards of privilege, and legitimisation. Why would they need to if Rome was the Empire rather than the Republic? Exactly who were they trying to kid? The facts are startlingly obvious if you set aside the much loved but medieval 'Emperor of Rome'. Rome remained a Republic with evolving leadership. The Polybian hybrid government of aristocratic Senate, democratic people, and executive Magistracy had changed to Dominatal Magistracy with Senatorial acceptance - but it was the same nation state. When Augustus stated in his Res Gestae that he was Princeps Senatus he meant it. That was his day job. Yes, he was particularly powerful, but never absolute, and in any case power alone does not make you a monarch. His powers were based on a series of privileges, titles, and honours, not any existing position in Roman society, these powers given him by the Senate, and as an ambitious man of course he used them. However if you notice young Octavian had been invited into the Senate on the promise he would protect the Republic. He did exactly that. Yes, he profitted personally from doing so - he was an elite Roman, of course he did. Augustus even refers to this success as a statesman as the 'fruit of his labours'. If power wasn't his primary objective, as indeed Aurelius Victor claimed it was, then what was it? A prosperous Republic. There is no other answer that fits.

It's a matter of context. If the Romans are discussing all the peoples who lived on the isles then yes, they are Britons. However, normally they refer to Britons as the tribes within their sphere of influence and specifically name the Caledonians as Pictii (the Painted People) both because they were a barbarian people in opposition to the presence of Rome but also the clear separation in culture.. Always bear in mind that Rome did not classify people according to nation states, it was about region and tribe. Where the Romans didn't know the tribes very well they tended to be more generic, such as the more distant northern tribes referred to as Germani (Spear-man, or 'True Celt')

I defer to the many folks on this site who know this subject (and geography) far better than I. I would assume that the Romans usually thought of the Caledonians as beyond the boundary (and active interest) of the Roman Empire. After the inability to hold on to the gains achieved by the victory at the Battle of Mons Graupius in AD 83/84, the Roman army quickly returned to more settled (and “civilized”) Romanized England. I imagine that Hadrian’s Wall (AD 122) and the briefly-held Antonine Wall (AD 142) best defined for the Romans the demarcation between Roman-friendly Britons and the less Romanized Caledonians. These walls may have been more of a control gate for trade and commerce between north and south than an absolute border. These walls, nevertheless, would have served as psychological barriers between Roman and “barbarian.” Even the later ill-fated incursions back into Scotland by Septimius Severus (AD 208-210) were quickly reversed by his son Caracalla. You may want to contact UNRV Gordopolis who is a Scottish writer and historian about his perspective. https://www.unrv.com/forum/profile/51701-gordopolis/

How did Octavian gain power over Rome? A question asked on Quora.com and my answer is expanded here. Octavian was already powerful, by accident of birth, by becoming the inheritor of Caesar's estate and status, and by forming an illegal army from Caesar's veterans which brought him to the attention of the Senate. They wanted him punished, but Cicero persuaded them the youngster would be useful. At the age of nineteen, on my own initiative and at my own expense, I raised an army by means of which I restored liberty to the republic, which had been oppressed by the tyranny of a faction. For which service the Senate, with complimentary resolutions, enrolled me in its order, in the consulship of Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius, giving me at the same time consular precedence in voting; it also gave me the imperium. As propraetor it ordered me, along with the consuls, "to see that the republic suffered no harm." - Res Gestae (Augustus) Octavian rose to dominance by manipulation of popularity, by acting against Marc Antony whose association with Egypt made him a traitor in the eyes of the Senate and People of Rome, by defeating the Romano-Egyptian threat to Rome, by annexing Egypt by conquest, and by returning the supreme power he had been awarded to defeat Cleopatra to the Roman state, then by a series of intense negotiations with the Senate. But please realise Augustus was not powerful in one title. He held a number of magistracies, priesthoods, and privileges that together added up to some serious influence. He was effectively manager of republican government, but never an emperor despite the popularity of that idea. He retained Egypt as his own personal province where the Senate could not legally go, he had direct influence over regions with military garrisons thanks to his senior imperium (right to command an army), but a third of the empire remained under senatorial oversight. For ten years in succession I was one of the triumvirs for the re-establishment of the constitution. To the day of writing this I have been princeps senatus for forty years. I have been pontifex maximus, augur, a member of the fifteen commissioners for performing sacred rites, one of the seven for sacred feasts, an arval brother, a sodalis Titius, a fetial priest. - Res Gestae (Augustus) Also please note that descriptions of Augustus changed over time. He was regarded as the saviour of the Republic during his day (which to be fair he was only too keen to encourage), but five hundred years later he was being described as an absolute monarch who abolished the aristocracy. Little wonder the Middle Ages decided to call him an Emperor however wrong that was. May it be my privilege to establish the State in a firm and secure position, and reap from that act the fruit that I desire; but only if I may be called the author of the best possible government, and bear with me the hope when I die that the foundations which I have laid for the State will remain unshaken. - Augustus Consul - One of two annually elected senior magistrates of Rome, also originally military commanders of a legion each. Imperator - Victorious General, described by Cassius Dio and Varro. Princeps Senatus - First Senator Propraetor - Former leader Supreme Power - Not defined by anyone but indicates the powers of a Dictator without the title, which had been abolished by Marc Antony after Caesar's death. Triumvir - Member of a council but in Octavian's context, a reformer of the state.

Looks like the figurine at 2m12s in below film. Isn't this from Paestum's Greek rather than Roman period?

I love the tune, also:

There isn't much evidence for military protocol in the Roman legions. Legionaries weren't called 'soldiers' before Augustus (they were referred to as 'Brothers'). Specific ranks would be a little tedious so broad categories are likely, Centurion, Tribune, Legate. What you will have to become aware of is that the Romans may well have not used analogous behaviour to modern armies (a typical Hollywood or literary ploy). Saluting has been debated for a lo/ng time and most people feel comfortable with a modernesque protocol, but the sources do not mention saluting outside of honouring a commander as opposed to recognising his superior rank as we do. What this means is that ordinary salutes may not have happened, but that soldiers who approved of their commanders may have deliberately or spontaneously saluted them as something. Incidentially using the word 'Domine' might well have been seen as 'licking the backside'. In fact, such language does exist in letters recovered from Vindolanda. It does not refer to rank, but names the recipient as 'Master'. That's a very subordinate form of phrasing because it infers that you are indentured to the recipient in some way. Legionaries swore an oath of obedience - this was necessary because obedience to another man is the same as slavery, and Roman soldiers would not tolerate such associations. They were free citizens, soldiers or not. The upshot of this is that I am thinking in terms of names being more contextual than actual rank titles in many cases. Remember that in the legions, loyalty is fixed toward individuals rather than offices.

Dating Methods One of the absolutely most important corners in the work of a historian or an archaeologist is the possibility to date their work. It’s such a natural feature of a museum, article or book that most common people don’t even thing about it. It’s just that way it is, the archaeologist knows when. Done. In all honestly though, dating is critical for all historical knowledge and research, it’s the frame on which we build all of our past. It is however not even close to as easy as it may seem, dating objects are a very complex work. There are even two primary dating systems, an important fact missed by most people; the absolute dating and the relative dating. This article is therefore meant as a base for you to consider what the dates you will get bombarded with really mean and to make it possible for you to draw your own conclusions on how reliable they are. Another very important thing to keep in mind when talking about any dating is the time scale. Remember that not all cultures use the same timescale and the western world and not even we use the same scale at all times. The most commonly used are however BC/AD (Before and after Christ) and BP as Before Present where present is set to 1950 AD. This is mainly used for prehistoric periods before 8000-10000 BC, but it may of course be used for any other date too. Relative Dating: In theory it’s very easy to make out the difference between absolute and relative dating, I will start with explaining the relative dating and how it is used. As the name suggests it’s made up of relations between objects, a typological sequence where you can see how an object is changing its shape slowly through time. A classic archaeological example would be stone axes in the north or Athenian pottery in southern Europe. Even easier to see today is the changes in how a car looks . If you find pictures of an old horse cab and then get more and more pictures as it’s developed into the first automobiles and then modern cars you will see how certain features hangs on for a while to later disappear. The resemblances between a horse cab and a modern car may be virtually none, but if you have all the steps it will all unfold. This is exactly what relative dating is about, making a chain of objects that resembles each other and you can now say that this object is older than that object, you have a relative dating line. You will however, unless you can date one of the objects absolutely, have any idea about how old they are. The important part here is what objects to compare, it’s not enough that they are from roughly the same time frame, and they need to be from the same geographical area. Its often trickier then expected. Absolute Dating: To place an object exact in time you will need to use the other method, absolute dating and this is compared to relative dating a rather new phenomenon except or written sources. Before the emergence of modern physics and science the only absolute dating we had was from this kind of material. Absolute dating is the methods used to fix an object to a specific place in time. The scientific methods to do this are quite many and I will only mention the most important to save you a very long reading. For what are the different methods used? I am now to go through a number of relative and absolute dating methods and examples. Stratigraphy: This is probably the most common way to use relative dating today. When using stratigraphy you are practically digging a whole in the ground with very straight edges. What you’ll soon notice is how the difference earth layers will have different colours and content. In theory it’s really this easy, what’s in the higher layers are newer then the lower layers, and everything in the same layer belong to the same time. In practice there are a great deal of problems. First of all, these dig shafts obviously cuts away one part of the stratigraphy and shows another, in practice you can miss a whole layer like this if it ends in your shaft. Secondly it’s very rare to find a completely undisturbed stratification. In almost all cases it has either been disturbed by humans, as in when a new house is built on top of an older one and the founding are dug down, or by animals. This disturbance is called formation processes and it’s crucial for all archaeologists who are working with stratigraphy to recognize what process have affected what object . There are two main types Cultural and Natural formations where cultural are human made and natural basically everything nature have done to the object. Are the cut marks on a stick made by a stone knife of a beaver? These are important questions for the interpretation of an object. These stratigraphy layers may also be very deep, well over 10 meters in cities from the medieval times and even thicker in older cities. In the Middle East there is a phenomena called tells (Tel Aviv as an example) city mounds that may be very high since cities have been in the same place for thousands and thousands of years. Now if you can date one object absolutely in a layer you know roughly from what time frame all objects in that layer are (Considering the above problems of course). The last thing to have in mind when doing this is that the date you get is the last used date not a date for when the object was originally made. Lots of objects can circulate for tens or even hundreds of years before it is finally lost or buried. In effect we know when the object was buried not when it was made or used and object of different age can therefore be mixed. Radiocarbon dating: The absolutely most well known absolute dating method is the radiocarbon dating method also known as the 14C method, which was invented by the American Williard Libby during the 1940’s. The method was an unexpected result of the intense atomic research of the day. In earth’s atmosphere is a most unusual substance called coal-14 (One coal atom out of 1012) created when nitrogen (14N) is bombarded by neutrons from space in the form of background radiation. This gives 14N + n -> 14C + 1H, in other words the nitrogen and the neutron is transformed into this highly unusual coal-14 and hydrogen. During its life all living mater consume a small amount of 14C. After its death the consuming is done for and the coal-14 already in the object or animal is slowly falling apart, this because the 14C atom is unstable and is constantly trying to revert back to it’s more stable 12C state. Now we know how a 14C atom looks and by taking a sample we can know how much of the original atoms that are left and reverse calculate how long ago the object died, presented as BP, Before Present as in before 1950. However the method is far from perfect and rather complicated to use. The basis for the calculations for how old the object is are made by an estimated half life of 14C set by Libby to 5568 years, but since then a new more accurate half life have been calculated to 5730 years. Laboratories however still use the older less accurate number though since there are more problems to overcome before the dating can be used. One of those problems is that all dates are estimated, not exact. It’s accepted that the number has a 95% chance to be in about the range of 2.5-5% to the real date. This may seem as very little but for most objects before about the 1st millennia BC a relative dating is more exact, especially in the Greek and Roman world. The next problem is that when the first dates were coming out in 1949 they were all slightly off and too old. This was because the 14C have not always been constant and further calibration was needed. This is mainly done by dendrochronology (Tree ring dating). Ice cores and sea bottom cores have also been used in calibration. Further on wasn’t the first method to calculate the number of intact 14C atoms as accurate as those today and newer methods keep coming. There is also the problem of modern contamination, as soon as an object is taken up from the dig and comes into contact with modern organic material the coal-14 balance is changed. Very many objects are therefore impossible to date in this manner. The last and maybe most problematic issue for prehistorians is the fact that the 14C method only allow us to date up to 40.000-50.000 years back, after that the number of 14C atoms are so low that it cannot be measured accurately and modern contamination is overwhelming compared to the original 14C. Dendrochronology: Another important method is dendrochronology. This is classed as an absolute dating method but it’s clearly an offspring of relative dating. The principle behind it is (as in most other dating methods) easy. Each year a tree grows a certain amount very much depending on how the weather have been. In the spring and summer the rings are thick and bright, then they get very thin and dark over the winter. This is constant to all trees in a regional area. If you can find a number of samples from different periods it’ll be possible to puzzle those together into a chronology. From this you may later date wooden objects. This method also has a lot of problems to consider though. The largest is that it does only work in temperate zones where the years have seasons, therefore it’s not possible to use in all jungle areas. Even in temperate zones it does only work for the same species as the one you have a chronology for. Some trees cannot even be used at all. The method is also highly regional, about 250 km in diameter very much depending on the climate and natural conditions and therefore very troublesome some to make. However can most places in Europe and Northern American be dated with dendrochronology up to 8000 BC. Beside dating of wooden objects is the absolutely most important use of this method to calibrate 14C and therefore making it more reliable. Thermoluminicense: Cheramics have been a problem since it cannot be dated with either coal-14 or tree ring dating (Unless the finder is in luck and a grain or piece of wood is stuck in the object). There is one method however called thermoluminicense that can date ceramics. The theory is that it’s possible to measure how much radiation the crystal structure have received since it was last burned. When heated up to more then 500 degrees C this radioactivity is released and the thermoluminicent clock is reset. What you do is that you take a sample and heat it up to 500 degrees C and it will release a faint light that can be measured. The stronger the light is the older the object is. Here the largest problem is that the margin for error is large, +/-10% that in all historic times is far too much to be of any use and almost never exact enough for any other pottery either. Therefore the largest use has been to identify fakes from real objects. Closing thoughts: All methods are problematic in one or another manner and must therefore be used with caution. Beside all methods individual problems there is one general point that must be taken very seriously. When an object is found you need to exactly understand what you are dating. It’s a common error to take a coal-14 test of an object and then say this is how old it is. This is wrong. That is how long ago the object consumed it’s last coal-14. Imagine a house dated in this manner. A house can be at the same place for several hundreds of years and be rebuilt any number of times. Therefore I want to finish this with; be critical to the dating you see, stop up for a second and think about what it is that is dated and I promise you, you will have a much greater understanding of the object that you are observing. Sources: Gr

I had to do an essay for college on greco-roman writings on the celts. and here it is... How useful are the Greco-Roman sources in determining the truth about life and events in Iron Age Britain?History is by no means set in stone. Though we can piece together much of the past’s events through the use of archaeology and interpretation of historical documents, we can never be truly sure of what really happened. I believe that this can definitely apply to Iron Age Britain; I say this for a variety of reasons. For instance, archaeological evidence can only inform us about the basic details of Celtic life—e.g. distribution of communities, appearance of houses and farming activities. As this is apparent, the only other source of information is contemporary literature. Though the Celtic inhabitants of Britain (Britons) were an illiterate civilization; most Celts recorded information by memory rather than by use of script. So the only other source of contemporary literature would be from nearby Greco-Roman societies. However, there are many flaws in these sources. In this essay I aim to question the validity of Greco-Roman sources in determining the truth about life in Iron Age Britain. I will begin by looking at one of the earliest accounts of the British people from around 300BC. At this point in time, ideas about Britain were very vague and as Britain was outside the Sea of Ocean (the assumed border of the known world) it was often portrayed as a fantasyland where mythological beasts and gods roamed. At this time only a handful of people had explored Britain, namely the explorer Pythias of Massilia, who recorded his fantastic adventures around the North Sea in a book; though there is now no surviving copy of this written text. However, over the years ideas about Britain began to become more realistic. This could be due to possible trade links between the Britons and the Greeks: Greek pottery dating from 220BC was found in the South West of England. But these Greco-Roman sources were to become clearer in the years 55-54BC upon the two invasions of the ambitious Roman general & politician, Giaus Julius Caesar. Even though Caesar’s invasion was an unsuccessful one, he stayed on the island long enough to write (in his book, The Gallic War) an accurate ethnographical account of the customs, appearance and military tactics of the indigenous Britons. For instance, he mentions that ‘All Britons dye themselves with woad, which produces a blue colour and as a result their appearance in battle is all the more daunting. They wear their hair long and shave all their bodies with the exception of their heads and upper lips…’ As well as writing about the appearance of the Britons Caesar enlightens us with a description of their traditions and values: ‘They have a taboo against eating hare, chicken and goose…Wives are shared between groups of up to twelve men, especially between brothers and between fathers and sons.’ However, these descriptions may have been exaggerated; Caesar had many reasons for doing this. For example, when Caesar wrote his book he wanted it to sell. So in order to make ‘The Gallic War’ a bestseller back in Rome this would mean that he would have to leave out the mundane elements of Celtic life (e.g. agricultural activities) and would have to emphasize the weird and wonderful (e.g. the sharing of women). Furthermore Caesar was always trying to out do his rivals; the hero of the east, Pompey and the vanquisher of Spartacus, Crassus. Therefore to increase his reputation as a general and add to his presidge, Caesar would have depicted the British Celts as a formidable enemy. Another fault in Caesar’s writing was that he had a tendency to make sweeping generalisations about the natives of Britain. For instance, he stereotypes the ‘…people in the interior…’ as being more barbarous than the people of the South; this is odd because Caesar never really ventured as far as the British interior. However, despite these inaccuracies and exaggerations I personally believe that Caesar’s portrays an accurate description of Celtic Britain. I say this because unlike the contemporary writers before him (with the exception of Pythias), he was the only one of them to actually set foot on British soil. Also Archaeology (e.g. excavations of British Hill forts) can support Caesar’s descriptions of Celtic society. After Julius Caesar’s invasion of Britain, many other contemporary writers began to produce similar descriptions of the indigenous population of Britain. A good example of one of these writers was the Geographer Strabo (who was writing around the late BC-early AD period). In his works about Britain he provides us with an ethnographical description of the Britons. He writes a variety of information on their appearance: ‘…the men (of Britain) are taller than the Gauls, not so blond, and of looser build’. There customs: ‘Their customs are in some respects like those of the Celts (Gauls), in other respects simpler and more barbaric…’ And their political life: ‘…they are ruled by chieftains. Another one of these writers was the Historian Diodorus Siculus, who like Strabo heavily based his depictions of the Britons on Julius Caesar’s writing. As these two writers borrowed so heavily from Caesar’s work, I personally believe that they do not actually provide us with any new information on the life of the British Celts; they merely just re-hash previous knowledge. Since this is apparent their writings possess the same faults that Caesar’s did. Furthermore, these writers never visited Britain, nor did they have any direct links with the island. But having said this, they were writing at a time when Britain was opening up to trade diplomatic links with Rome (it is mentioned in Emperor Augustus’ Res Gestae that two British Kings paid homage to him), so the writers at this time may have had know more about Celtic Britain then I have given them credit for. In 44AD Britain faced another Roman invasion, this time under Emperor Claudius. Unlike Caesar’s invasion, the 44AD conquest was incredibly successful and Britain soon became a Roman province. So with most of Britain in the hands of Rome, knowledge of the island should have increased. The early book (that survives) which informs us about the Britons after Claudius’ invasion is Tacitus’ ‘Agricola’, written around 100AD. In this book Tacitus informs us about the life of his father-in-law and successful governor of Britain Gnaeus Julius Agricola. Though Agricola is the main focus of attention, Tacitus writes a small section on the inhabitants of Britain, though he mainly concentrates on the way in which the Britons fight. He mentions details such as the fact that they use ‘…battle chariots…’ which archaeology has proved to be correct. Tacitus also mentions that their armies are unorganised and divided, and ‘…do not plan joint operations…’ with other tribes. The works of Tacitus seem to be correct as he was able to use his father-in-law as a primary source. However, even though Tacitus was able to ask Agricola about the Celtic way of life, there are many errors in his work. For instance, Tacitus was a very proud man and never liked to admit he was wrong. So when he did not know a certain fact, he had a tendency to invent falsehoods. Furthermore, in some parts of ‘Agricola’, Tacitus contradicts a lot of what Caesar wrote in ‘The Gallic War’. For example, Tacitus writes that ‘…some tribes fight in chariots. The nobleman is the diver; his retainers do the fighting…’ Caesar on the other hand states that it was actually the nobleman who did the fighting, and as Caesar had actually been to Britain, I personally believe that he was correct. One of the only other sources that give an account of the Celts in Britain was written around 300AD by Dio Cassius. However this account seems to be incredibly inaccurate. This is because he depicts the Britons as simple barbarians who ‘…live off bark and roots’ and ‘…live in tents…’ whereas at this point in time Britain had been a Roman province for almost 250 years and most Celts were living a very Roman way of life. But how was Dio Cassius supposed to know…he never went to Britain! Although these contemporary sources paint a fairly accurate picture of Celtic Britain, they only tell us half the story. This is because all the surviving sources about Celtic Britain were written by Greco-Romans, not the Britons themselves. As we only get an idea about the Celtic life style though Greco-Roman writers, their accounts have to be taken with a pinch of salt. This is due to the fact that most Greco-Roman held particular prejudices against their Celtic neighbours. For instance, the philosopher and naturalist Aristotle once stated that man is a ‘Political animal’ in other words it was in mans nature to live in towns and cities. As this was a popular view and it was so ingrained in Greco-Roman writers, many of them just dismissed the Britons as sub-human barbarians just because of the fact that they did not live in pertinent towns. However, no all writers viewed the Celts as mindless barbarians. Some writers had a slight admiration of the Celtic 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. But the vast majority of the Greco-Romans believed that the Britons were barbarous. So the fact that the Greco-Roman writers were judging the British Celts by the standards of their own culture is a reason why these sources are not completely trustworthy. Other than cultural reasons we cannot completely trust the sources just because of the style in which they are written. This is mainly because not a single Greco-Roman book that souly focuses on Britain survives. Most of are information about Iron age Britain comes from books where the country is mentioned in passing. And the vast majority of surviving texts on Celtic Britain were mainly about political and military history (the actions of King, Queens and armies) rather than social history (the action of ordinary people), so we cannot extract the full truth about the Celtic lifestyle from these sources. As well as this the writers also had a predisposition to exaggerate and make generalisations about the Celts, particularly if they want to sell their book. They often only just emphasised the violent and bizarre aspects (e.g. human sacrifice) of the Britons, as this was the stuff that sold books. So though their books were highly entertaining, they were not completely reliable. Finally archaeology has proved many of the sources wrong. For example, Pomponius Mela (an obscure source) mentions that the Britons used scythed chariots in battle. This was thought to be true until recent excavations proved that this was not so. In conclusion to the question, I believe that though these sources depict a fairly accurate picture of Iron Age Britain, they also possess many faults and inaccuracies.