Leaderboard

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.

Whilst I was on holiday I saw a television broadcast of a dramatised documentary about Boudicca's rebellion against Rome in AD60. Entertaining stuff, however biased toward the Roman account, which is admittedly our only source and written back in the day to conform to their readers expectations of an interesting and dramatic anecdote. But as I watched, I realised the presenter was making fundamental errors about Rome's provincial policies. In short, I hereby examine three statements made during the program. 1 - That Rome ruled by violence and oppression 2 - That Rome relied on the invincibility of her army 3 - That the rebellion illustrates the truth of what life was like under Roman rule. 1 - Rome ruled by violence and oppression This is a common conception. Rome is seen as a monolithic nation state that assimilates populations to produce indentikit citizens with a generation or two. This was simply not so. Rome was at heart a city state with influence over a network of territories of varying status and native populations owing them loyalty and taxes. it is true that many regions were brought into the empire via conquest of one sort or another, but let's not forget that the realm of Iceni was a client state that Rome expected to inherit. Tacitus tells us that... The imperial agent Caisu Decianus, horrified by the catastrophe and his unpopularity, withdrew to Gaul. It was his rapacity which had driven the province to war Annals (Tacitus) Imperial agent? So Decianus was there at the orders of Nero to make sure the man the Senate had sent to make sure the province was doing fine, was doing fine. Whilst the habit of being rapacious, greedy, clumsy, and brutal was an unfortunate tendency of senior Romans in Provincial assignment, clearly not all of them were. Therefore violence and oppression was a policy pursued by individual Romans at their discretion rather than any tyrannical regime the Romans had foisted upon the unfortunate Britons. But then, the Romans didn't like tyrants all that much, never mind the Britons. 2 - Rome relied on the invincibility of her army Rome's legions were not invincible and they knew it. The sources contain many references to utter defeats and indeed, some describe one legion or another as barely resembling a military unit at all. But let's read what Tacitus says about a military mission to relieve the sack of Camulodunum. The Ninth Roman legion, commanded by Quintus Perilius Cerialus Caesius Rufus, attempted to relieve the town, but was stopped by the victorious Britons and routed. its entire infantry force were massacred, while the commander escaped to his camp with his cavalry and sheltered behind its defenses. Annals (Tacitus) Oh dear. The commander ran away with his horsemen, perhaps two or three percent of a full strength legion. How invincible was that? 3 - That the rebellion illustrates the truth of what life was like under Roman rule. The 'savage' Britons ran riot, attacking Londinium, Veralumium, and eventually meeting another legionary force under the senatorial governor Suetonius, at the Battle of Watling Street. Tacitus kindly gives us the speech made by Boudicca - which is clearly invented since no-one would have recorded it for the benefit of a Roman historian. The Britons lose, and Boudicca is said to have poisoned herself - a standard Roman style fate. Nero sends replacements for the casualties suffered by the Ninth Legion. And hot off the boat is Decianus' replacement. Still the savage British tribesmen were disinclined for peace, especially as the newly arrived Imperial Agent Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus, successor to Caius Decianus, was on bad terms with Suetonius, and allowed his personal animosities to damage the national interests. Annals (Tacitus) Should have all been sorted. Calmly, confidently, and decisively. But as happens in these anecdotes of Roman disorder, personality is the flaw rather than politics. Nero senses things aren't working out, and sends his freedman Polyclitus to investigate, who travelled with a seriously large entourage that stretched the patience of Italy and Gaul. it even intimidated the Roman legions. The Britons were, by all accounts, quite amused. But all this was toned down in Polyclitus' reports to the emperor. Retained as governor, Suetonius lost a few ships and their crews on the shore, and was then superseded for not terminating the war. His successor, the recent consul Publius Petronius Turpilianus, neither provoking the enemy nor provoked, called this ignoble inactivity peace with honour. Annals (Tacitus) One imperial agent ran away, his replacement pursued intrigue rather than the rebels.. The senatorial governor got the sack, his replacement did nothing until the leaderless rebels gave up. Conclusion The television presenter stopped at the defeat of Boudicca, describing Rome as a tyranny that trampled rebellions with violence and oppression. What Tacitus describes is a catalogue of folly. Greed, cowardice, intrigue, indecisiveness, and clumsiness. The war is not won, merely left to fizzle out. Violence and oppression? Truth was the Romans were too busy making mistakes.