caldrail

I don't think Constantine would have cared less about usury, he was only interested in creating a stable controlled society, and Christianity was a means to an end. But of course, they might have been right, hence he got baptised at the end of life - just in case.

Fascinating. Never occurred to me that plants might be extinct since then.

103 5,987 posts Gender:Male Location:Darkest Wiltshire, England Interests:Find out more on my blog here at UNRV. Go on, treat yourself... Posted 1 minute ago Constantine never had any issues with any such authority. Why would he encourage the amalgamation of existing Christian sects and offer them patronage if they were competing for power? Sorry, that doesn't add up. He wanted their communal influence to help weld his factional empire together, and as a military man, identified readily with the priest and congregation style of worship. The Bishops were only too keen to comply, given they were benefitting with wealth and land ("The roads were filled with galloping Bishops..." Ammianus Marcellinus). Certainly that influence was something Roman that survived the end of the Western Empire, and indeed, the Catholic Church would have extreme control over hearts and minds by the eleventh century, but that influence had grown to that point, not existent before the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Constantine never had any issues with any such authority. Why would he encourage to amalgamation of existing Christian sects and offer them patronage if they were competing for power? Sorry, that doesn't add up. He wanted their communal influence to help weld his factional empire together, and as a military man, identified readily with the priest and congregation style of worship. The Bishops were only too keen to comply, given they were benefitting with wealth and land ("The roads were filled with galloping Bishops..." Ammianus Marcellinus). Certainly that influence was something Roman that survived the end of the Western Empire, and indeed, the Catholic Church would have extreme control over hearts and minds by the eleventh century, but that influence had grown to that point, not existent before the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Jesus was not the founder of Christianity. Does that sound odd? The jury is still out on whether he actually existed. The beliefs that Jesus (presumed real name Yeshua) followed were derived from those already in existence. Sure, he had his own take on it, but he operated as a charismatic preacher rather than a cult leader, and inevitably that meant his popularity as a speaker doomed him regardless of what he was talking about. Jesus wasn't the first or the only such preacher to be removed by the authorities in Judaea, never mind the ancient world. Then we have the period when Proto-Christian cults are being founded here and there, most famously by Paul. Christianity emerges as the Roman church from the attempted unification of various sects within the empire during the 4th century. It is interesting that the Graeco-Roman split of the later empire is reflected by a later split between Catholic and Orthodox churches (mostly because the Pope tried to boss around the Patriarch in Byzantium). The heresies as defined by the Nicene Creed were not entirely crushed, and later Churches, some of them significant, emerge every so often in the historical record. But note that early Christianity were borrowing ideas from the rival Mithraic religion (and complaining that Mithraism was copying them), and that certain aspects of mythology, namely the 'Miracles', were borrowed from India. It was just too much of a coincidence to think of them all independently.

Another one? For a far flung part of the empire Britain certainly has some mosaics to offer. The mentions of Britain as a bountiful source of grain ring true as the evidence of wealthy landowners in the late empire come to light. And yet, when it came down to it, they abandoned Britain to its fate at the end of the period. Perhaps another reason for the collapse of the Western Empire?

Interesting. I agreed with a lot of the commentary but I should add some observations. The meal described shows some culinary flair despite the basic nature of it. I can imagine a star/veteran gladiator being fed that way, but I wonder if gladiators of the more common status were likewise supplied. Gladiators were slaves after all, and as such, legally the same status as animals. Barley as a more basic meal (without the fava beans) would have predated the first recorded gladiatorial contest in 264BC. Gladiators were not common as soldiers. Slaves were not eligible as soldiers and ordinary legionaries would not fight alongside them. It was a tactic of desperation.

Yes, Egypt was a suprisingly long lived nation. I'm also becoming aware of how conservative they could be, ignoring some technological advances despite developing some of their own. They were in many ways the most glaring example of a long term human society gradually getting stuck in their ways and losing the dynamism of youth. Then again, Egypt is so full of abrupt change, not least the succession of foreign dynasties that ruled them. The bizarre and tragic reign of Akhenaton. The complete move of the city of Tanis from one dried up river to a another watercourse, literally, dismantling the old city and hauling the stones to build a new one somewhere else. I remain a romanophile, but a part of me thinks that even Roman achievements are sometimes a little paltry compared to Egypt. Perhaps what is more important is that I'm beginning to see how Egypt was a transitional society between prehistory and the classical world.

Sounds like someone important got buried there.

Really? Haven't you noticed how popular it's become to blame societal collapse on volcanic eruptions? Bear in mind that eruptions are not uncommon events, so in a large empire like ancient China, the odds of there being an eruption close to dynastic change may be no more than random chance. Now I say this because where we have documented eruptions in historical record, they generally do not cause any political change and still don't to this day. Take Vesuvius for example. We all know something about the dramatic events that buried towns in the area in ad79. True, the event was a bad omen in many peoples minds during Titus' reign, but there were others, including plague, and he did not fall. But did you know there were other eruptions of that volcano in 472, 787, 1139, 1500, 1631, 1660, 1698, 1707, 1760, 1767, 1779, 1794, 1822, 1834, 1850, 1861, 1872, 1906, 1929, and 1944? And I'm only listing those described as explosive. granted, many of these were not on the same magnitude as the infamous 79 eruption, but you do understand that evidence of volcanic activity is common enough to coincide with dynastic change at some point?

I disagree. The West was heading for the end and had been for some time. Please note that Majorian is the only leader who showed any capability to change that, and he couldn't, because he had not inspired enough loyalty (which in Roman times was a feat in itself). Look at the situation. Rome was no longer capital of the west, it was a disease ridden rump of its former glory. Ravenna was capital, chosen because it was inside swamplands and difficult to attack. All the money had long gone eastward to Constantinople and that in Roman society meant everything. Let's not forget that the eastern empire would survive, for the most part, for another thousand years.

A four year reign of dramatic change and an early death by betrayal. Guaranteed to be sen as a hero by some just for the story. Does he really justify the praise heaped on him? I ask that because he he settled nothing, he was a blip on the history radar that shone bright and winked out. Did he leave any lasting impression on the world? No, unless you include Gibbon's opinions and this video. Worth remembering I suppose but ultimately not hugely significant.

A woman desiring to be 'emancipated' would be unusual. Does that sound odd? The Roman world was different to ours and she would have been born into a strong social order with consequent expectations. Usually, a woman saw her freedom in terms of who she married rather than actually controlling her own fate, though most avenues for feminine self determination were considered infama (infamous or bad), such as acting or the sex industry. Also, betrothals would have happened at quite a young age normally because the woman might expect to be married by the age of fifteen, and younger girls are recorded. She could of course bear three children and apply for legal seperation, a divorce might be possible but Romans were very keen on preserving a public image, and her father would have to allow it. I think it was Juvenal who wrote a satire about a rich daughter who forsook her life of unbridled luxury to run away with the Gladiator of her dreams. Daddy wasn't going to like that. You ask whether a woman could inherit her mother's property. Actually that was not a foregone conclusion, the ability of women to inherit was legally restricted. If she was married, her mother's property as an inheritance would be under the nominal control of her husband and since it was not part of a recorded dowry, I doubt she would be able to reclaim it after divorce. You also ask about setting up homes for the younger generation. I have no doubt that parents usually wished to assist, this is common behaviour for human beings, but bear in mind that the young man is expected to be adult and in charge of his own affairs (actually he wasn't. As long as his father remained alive, he would always be subject to his rulings, and this is why parricide was considered such a crime in Roman society. By and large the Romans remain very quiet about this quirk in society).

Okay, the video was well intentioned and informative. However, the link with pre-caesarian Rome might be overstated, because whilst Roman good were clearly being traded into Britain, it probably wasn't the Romans doing the trade. Remember they knew very little about Britain and even after Caesar had been there twice, troops embarking for an invasion ordered by Caligula mutinied because of superstition, not just about crossing a stretch of fearsome English Channel, but because of rumours about the strange peoples and monsters that were said to live in Britain. The same troops would try to mutiny again, under Claudius, whose freedman on the spot had to calm them down and remind them of their duty (and possibly, though it isn't recorded, the humiliation that Caligula had heaped upon them). Gauls would have been the major trading parties, passing on Roman goods obtained along the frontier/provincial areas, and other Mediterranean sailors had long been reaching British shored before the Romans.

My latest faves are "Master of Illusion" by Finland's own metal band Battle Beast.

I'm a little amused by this because it appears to me the reassessment is from a later generation. I've known for a long time of the early Saxon settlement in Britannia thanks to antiquarians of the late 19th century (who, it must be said, range from the perceptive to the almost fantasist), but articles written in archeological magazines of the period list various finds and sites which are sometimes hard to ignore. On the plus side, the research we're getting now is likely to be more reliable.

Interesting that you ask that. Intervention in the Russian Civil War wasn't especially extensive as far as I know, very few British people even know it happened. We were involved in Estonian Independence, Latvian Independence, Turkish War of Independence, Third Anglo Afghan War, Kuwait-Najd War, Irish War of Independence, Somaliland Campaign, Great Iraqi Revolution, Burao Tax Revolt, and the Adwan Rebellion. We were also involved in occupation duties in Adriatic. Wow. Some of those I haven't heard of either. Add to that the usual woes after a major conflict, the knackered and under maintained railway system that was subject to a major rationalisation program called the "The Grouping" in 1923. I guess we had a lot to pay for back then. - oh, and before I forget, Gandhi was pursuing Indian Independence and British troops got a little heavy handed. out there.

Sort of. But there is an example of mass crucifixion mentioned by the sources, the 6000 captured rebels after the defeat of Spartacus along the Via Appia.

Crucifixion wasn't that common, it was reserved for slaves, pirates, and criminals that needed the worst capital punishment such as enemies of the state. Under normal circumstances citizens were exempt but one source says that humiliores were later included as potential victims.. There were plenty of ways of getting rid of somebody not least being condemned ad gladius or ad bestias.

Slaves made gladiators by purchase or court ruling (Ad ludum was condemned to the training school. Ad Gladium was to be put to the sword. It didn't matter how, and such men often fought in pairs until they died. Ad bestias means thrown to the beasts, or just as liikely, tied to a pole so the the crowd can see the ferocious beast in action) were essentially prisoners. Gladiators sold to private individuals might form personal troupes with their own premises or work as bodyguards within the house. Volunteer gladiators usually had the option to come and go. However, it isn't always so cut and dried. Star gladiators of whatever origin might be allowed to attend functions held by important people who want them on the guest list. Sometimes a lanista might be paid for some reason to let the gladiator out of barracks (it is often suggested that lanistas prostituted their gladiators because it was known that wealthy ladies in particular sometimes indulged themselves with private liaisons. Gladiators were symbolic of virility. Scarred, ugly, it didn't matter. However, too much sex would sap the gladiators performance, which is one reason why legionaries weren't supposed to marry, so a lanista might not be too keen to do this). Sometimes a volunteer who isn't being reliable might find out what being a slave is.

As a qualified pilot of light aircraft in two countries I feel obliged to point out that emergency action is part of the initial training syllabus because the instructor will want you to go solo at the first opportunity (usually around 10 hours flying time) to build confidence. Periodic checks and familiarisation flights for aircraft types new to you also involve the same procedures. Although I never suffered 'The Big One', I have encountered equipment or system failures in flight and had to make decisions on what to do. But inexperience is something to be wary of. I once went down to the airfield one friday afternoon because the weather looked brilliant. Always check the expected weather. It showed heavy rain coming in from the Atlantic but I had time to enjoy a flight so I got ready, preflighted the Cessna, and duly took off. Had a nice time in the local area, not wishing to go too far from my home field. I saw the clouds coming in, a great bank of cloud along the horizon. So I thought it was prudent to head home and land. What I underestimated due to inexperience was how slow that headwind was going to make me. So I arrived at the airfield as the weather did. On finals, I could see the runway slowly vanishing from the other end. Cause for concern but I still misjudged how much time I had. So as I came over the runway threshold at about ten or fifteen feet AGL, the rain arrived. My vision disappeared. Everything went light grey. For a moment, I experienced suprise. Was this it? Is this where it all goes wrong? Then I realised that an ever so slightly darker trapezoid was in front of me, the asphalt runway surface, barely visible, but it was enough to make a controlled landing. I taxied out into sunshine. The rain was a curtain in front of the main event, and I parked up, went to the office to sign off, and found out that the ATC people were furious at my lack of judgement. I had entirely forgotten the idea of finding somewhere else to land in good vis. Luckily however the Chief Instructor spoke up for me. As far as he was concerned, I hadn't panicked, I'd made a decision and followed it through. But it could have ended so much worse, and strictly speaking, the situation was entirely my own fault. Lesson learned. Some people unfortunately learn harder lessons, but flying is inherently risky. I know they say ity's the safest form of transport, but realistically, flying light aeroplanes has the same risk level as riding a motorbike.

Note that Palumbus was married. That suggests he was a volunteer gladiator. As such he might only have had one of two possible motives, firstly that he wanted fame and fortune as a fighter, but more likely, he was volunteering to pay off debt with his prize money. Someone in that position could be a member of a burial club, thus costs for his wife upon death would be reduced or waived. I am given to understand that among the familia of a gladiatorial troupe such burial clubs existed as well.

Samnite was an earlier form of gladiator class that went out of fashion by the Principate, whilst the Retiarius was was imperial in origin. I'm not sure the two classes ever coincided. However, there are other possibilites. One is secutor, except the helmet is wrong. Another is hoplomachus but the shield is wrong. A Thraex? That possible, since we don't see weapon.

Christianity still talks about the 'Resurrection' even though the significance is almost ignored today. It was originally a promise that worshippers would be brought back to life in a world free of pain, death, and torment. That was why early Christians were so keen to inter the dead complete, so the revived would not be short of a limb or two.

Chariots. It just occurred to me. Nothing more grand than two horses and a servant/slave to do the driving. The wife of Tarquin Superbus was supposed to have driven over her father after her husband threw the old king off his throne.