caldrail

As long as she didn't move around unescorted, it was a matter of choice. One thing to bear in mind was that Rome was a somewhat constricted city with no real division between classes, so large urban villas might be found among the Roman equivalent of slums and tenements. Carriages were possible in some of the wider width streets, but there might also be legal restrictions on when she could use them (Caesar had banned deliveries in daytime to reduce congestion). Hazards from crowded streets, irate or clumsy citizens and workmen, or perhaps worse, muck thrown casually from upper stories of buildings would be something to consider. In Pompeii, they've actually found small niches in the back wall of expensive properties presumably rented out to prostitutes operating in the back alleys. Her motive for travelling about might have an influence. For an important social occaision, then make the biggest impression, so yes, she would likely choose to arrive in style. If she's creeping out of the house for a secret liaison, either within her social circle or even with her favourite gladiator, discretion is called for. Funnily enough, I haven't seen any contextual evidence of horse or donkey riding about town.

On the same lines, armies had two commanders, who swapped daily, the theory being that it made rebellion against Rome that much harder. They were supposed to be Consuls but as Rome expanded and the need to field armies in more places simultaneously then other offices were allocated.

It was based on a republican principle of temporary or limited assignment of military command. The right to command an army was called imperium and handed out to select individuals either as an honour or because it was necessary to find someone else to lead. The autocratic power of 'emperors' was based largely on having the highest level command privilege, imperium maius, which was one reason, aside from military kudos which the Romans had a deep attraction to, for the title 'Imperator' to be the most popular among those who were saluted as Rome's leader (even if they didn't actually get to take power). It is from 'Imperator' that we get the word 'Emperor'. Note that a commander was supposed to surrender his imperium if he entered the Pomerium, the ritual heart of the city of Rome. Sometimes this was blatantly ignored - Sulla, Caesar, Severus, et al - or an inconvenience - Octavian/Augustus - but note also that the Senate awarded the right to command even though some emperors assumed it.

I have to take issue with your answer. Whilst Lenin did not overtly suppress democracy in 1917, he increasingly acted to install communist rule during Civil War, inluding sidelining the pro-democratic Sovnarkom and using the Pro-communist Politburo as effective government, not only because it was politically sympathetic to his ideals, but because it was smaller and more manageable. Indeed, before 1925 Lenin had shifted the focus from workers representation to a bureaucratic system, introduced the Cheka who persecuted political opposition, and by suppressing factions was able to centralise government. After all, the Kronstadt rebellion was about dissatisfaction with the Communist regime, and inside the Party itself, Lenin acted against democratic and workers factions to reinforce single party rule. Stalin was of course a compatriot of Lenin and aside from his personal desire to dominate, was also staunchly communist and quite obviously had already benefitted from the one party state. Why would he weaken his own power base to allow democratic influence?

Just now I was leafing through an internet article describing the greatest empires ever. I've heard of most of them, although a fair few I have no knowledge of at all. Naturally I felt a little bit of patriotic pride when the British Empire emerges up at the top of the list, but what struck me more about the article was the dubious content here and there. Did the Mongol Empire ever actually control South Africa like the map showed? Or did Stalin actually allow multi-party elections in Russia in 1991, when most sources will tell you it was Gorbachev long after Stalin was dead? A reminder therefore that the internet is not a reliable source of information.

By tradition the Romans had a specific campaigning season linked to religious observances. Obviously if conflict is forced upon them out of season for any reason then so be it. Note that as Rome extended its reach the campaigns tended to last for years rather than months in the days when they raided Italian neighbours. By tradition the season began in March - the name is derived from Mars, the Roman God of War - lasting until the Festival of Armilustrium in mid-October, considered the point where the weather would get too cold and wet for practical warfare. There are mentions of legions camping for the winter, most notably after the punitive expedition against the German tribes that had attacked the 5th Legion in Gaul and soundly defeated them. The legionaries spent the winter in Germania beyond the empire for that winter here and there, and the locals appeared to tolerate that given the strength of the Roman response. So encouraged were the Romans by this that Augustus sent Quintilius Publius Varus, a man known to be greedy after his governorship of Syria, to tax the Germanians in the occupied areas 'as if it was already a province'. It led to the Varian Disaster of ad9.

The Romana Humanitas forum would have been a better place but no worries. So, female emancipation? It depends on what form the marriage took There were three. Confarreatio was a formal style of marriage symbolised by breaking bread (a forerunner of cutting the cake). As you might expect, this was usually an upper class ceremony. Coemptio was marriage by purchase. This was not about slavery, but a financial deal between families (you could not marry a slave - that would be the same as marrying an animal, though there were plenty of male owners who gave their beloved female slaves freedom so they could marry). This form did not have the same religious aspect and was usually a lower class affair. Usus, which was basically cohabitation, without formality or religious significance, and again usually limited to the lower classes. The place of Women with regard to Roman law is an odd one. By tradition, a woman passed from father to husband or guardian as required by circumstance, but this might only be true if the man was head of his family. This constrained kind of relationship was out of fashion by the late republic in favour of a more open style, where the father retained legal control but did not interfere without due cause - the basis of female independence in society. Now, in the Principate, things change. A woman who was absent from her husband/home for three nights in succession (only allowed once in a year) had legal independence. Not divorced, just seperated. A woman who had three children (or four for plebian ladies) could appeal for legal independence, but these laws were set aside in the late empire having proven unpopular with men from the beginning. Also, a woman kept her property in marriage. This was a change from archaic tradition which meant that a woman would have her dowry returned after divorce and thus able to remarry properly. But if her husband died and left his property to her in her will, she might find herself in charge of more than just a house and a cashbox. She might be the owner of a business by default, a farm, an estate. The pressure on her to remarry would mount, especially under Augustan law which made marriage a social responsibility, and of course once the marriage was made the husband would be expected to take charge.

The Romans tended to see trousers as a barbarian item of clothing, at least until the late empire. There's very little evidence for climatic variations in kit but for practicality it's not hard to imagine that some adaption to local conditions took place. I note the Romans stress the use of cloaks for cold or bad weather. Incidentially the colour red as used by media and re-enactors is likely to be wrong. Romans saw 'red' as a symbolic of status, so officers may well have dressed in such colours, and we know that deliberate over-dyeing of material was used to make a fake purple, a high status colour if ever there was one. Legionaries were probably dressed in natural off-white shades of clothing, though some earthy colours have gained support in recent years. In previous era's to our own much was made of the quality of clothing, which would indicate the status of the wearer as much as any rank symbol does today. The clothes worn by senior officers were probably quite different from those of the rank and file.

The naval commander was Praefectus Classis. This site won't let me edit replies so I couldn't clear the typo. Sorry.

No. It is quite common to see parallels with modern military organisation but a legion was not a regiment - it was an independent mini-army all of its own, a packet of military power to be distributed to where security was needed and in the hands of chosen commanders. There were various titles that in some circumstances could see you allocated command of a legion or two. Praetor, for instance. Even Quaestors (a high level finance minister) sometimes received commands if the situation demanded it. Prefects were usually at cohort level but the Praefectus Castrorum was senior enough to take command if his superiors were unavailable. The Praefectus Calssis commanded a fleet of ships. Praefectus Equitates was a cavalry commander. However, in the later empire the legions were re-organised to meet the demands of the day with smaller legions and more emphasis on cavalry. At the same time, permanent army organisations begin to appear under the control of a Magister Militum, second only to the Emperor as military commander.

A dangerous policy. Kids will start thinking that video games are a uniformly accurate source of information. They're not.

Don't get too wrapped up in modern dietary science. Remember that for the exertion of a legionary, the twice daily arms practice, the weekly route march, the onerous manual labour when required, the act of digging a trench and rampart when camping for the night, and for a few, having to stay awake at night to guard it. They were primarily eating bread. Okay, meat too when they could get it, but on campaign the diet must have been substantially worse than normal. They still managed.

Good luck on proving this. I say that because there are scholars who've tried to fix the time and date and the possible eclipse parameters don't easily fit, not to mention the data available to Thales might well not have been enough.

There's no real shock or debate about this. They were fed a diet based on barley, which was considered animal food by the Romans (it was given to badly behaved legionaries as punishment), but this was not an issue for slave fighters, especially since the barley had a tendency to 'bulk up' the gladiator. A layer of fat was considered a good defence against minor sword cuts, and if you notice, some mosaics show very portly gladiators indeed. Now were they specifically vegetarian? I think not. Remember that volunteer gladiators (perhaps star athletes too, I have no data) had the freedom to come and go from a Ludum, thus they would have had plenty of opportunity to purchase fast food on the street. Also, though a little less important, gladiators were usually given a last meal which doubtless included the option of meat dishes. In many areas, fish and seafood would have been just as common. Whilst owners were not going to give all their gladiators a deliberately healthy and interesting diet - they were slaves, en par with animals even if the star athletes sometimes rubbed shoulders with the wealthiest patricians , a lot would depend on what was cheap and available in the area. Traditionally the Romans ate bread, or in earlier times, porridge (for which the Romans were derided by other peoples). Bread remained a staple of the Roman diet - it was likely this would remain true for gladiators.

I'm sure there's plenty more books you could add to that list

In a word, lots. Some writers play heavily on the few descriptions of marching legions that list thr equipment they carried with them, and interesting it is too, but I'm very wary of assuming that was in any way standard across the whole of Rome's military. Firstly, modern mass production did not exist. Therefore basic equipment was bound to vary. The ranks of identical legionaries in film and tv looks cool but isn't likely to look entirely realistic. Variations in the colour of cloth, armour design, weapon details, and shield shapes might be expected. We have one Roman writer who records that a senior officer saw a legionary spending a great deal of time painting his shield and commented scornfully that the soldier was spending more time on that than sharpening his blade. So the design on the shield surface was probably individualised.

Possibly, but equally as likely to be influenced by Syrian customs, a region known as a hotspot for alternative religions in classical times. Also the the nature of early Christianity was very fragmented into individual sects which basically followed their own teachings. Many rituals would have been similar, but certainly not all. It was only with the attempted unification of Christianity after 325 that dominant church leaders applied Roman chauvanism, and in quite an ugly form too. Many of these female clerics were positively persecuted.

The Roman legions had become a multi-ethnic military force before the Byzantine era. Remember that legions were raised in the provinces more often than Rome, who had always employed foreign elements as allies whenever required. The 'foreign-isation' of the Rome's military is sometimes touted as one of the reasons for the decline of the legion, though this had more to do with structure than any ethnic issues.

Just a couple of points to raise on peripheral issues - Females and religion. This was not abhorred by pagan Rome. After all, the Vestal Virgins had a vital religious role in preserving the spirit of the eternal city. yes, it is true that Rome was a very chauvanistic society but at the same time, women were accorded the potential to become matriarchs of the family, running the household though never master of it. That said, we find by imperial times that women had found legal loopholes to assert certain rights and this was not effectively countered by legislation. In fact, early christianity shows evidence of women as leading affiliates, bearing in mind this was before their attempted unification courtesy of Constantine. Once largely coherent in the late 4th century, the ugly side of masculine domination arrives and images of leading female clerics were erased. This was especially true in the east of the empire. Isis was a popular religion in Rome. It did not persist in the face of the rising competition between Mithras and Christianity, but still for a long time acceptable to the Principatal Romans who had a habit of treating foreign religions, especially those from Syria, as fashionable. Cleopatra was indeed from a dynasty of Greek origin but still regarded as Egyptian at the time, the land of her birth. Although originally earthly kings, pharoahs were also the religious leaders of Egypt and came to be seen as divine in their own right. By the time of Cleopatra, divine status was part of the job. Appearing as Isis was simply a ritual affirmation, a display expected of her by the people, and please not that with her Marc Antony dressed as Dionysus in public appearances at least once. And finally, Cleopatra's children were all allocated large regions of the projected Romano-Egyptian Empire. Hope that helps.

You know, speaking generally, I find two thirds of my time on history is about countering fondly held myths and legends. They are absolutely insidious and much loved by many. Partly this is because we tend to categorise and stereotype naturally (yes, I do too) but I do suspect that education is a major villain. When we first learn about historical periods it's always a few pages in a well illustrated book that portrays a 'typical' person and his signature style of home. All the famous anecdotes, right or wrong, condensed into an entertaining paragraph. What we're not introduced to as youngsters, or at least not until we reach higher education, is the concept of questioning these stereotypes in favour of deriving from source or archeological material. I suppose teachers have a hard enough time without kids posing impossible criticisms.

No, it's a mental state brought on by increasing maturity and a belief we know more than anyone else

Sorrry, did I understand this correctly? You're saying there were twelve syndicates of pirates surviving from ancient times? Emphatically, no.

Not available in Britain

What is the basis for describing this as a deliberately hidden hoard? Whilst your theory is plausible, it requires evidence of geological change. It might simply be objects lost at sea, either in transit or during a beaching operation, presumably to trade or shelter.

There were cultural legacies. The use of latin, titles, and architecture. So many people believe that Britain was 'romanised' within a generation or two but really that idea can't be justified. Native culture persisted in the background, especially since Roman influence was weaker in the north and west, such that it re-emerged after the legions had gone back to the continent. And on that subject, let's remember that although Britain was left undefended, the Britons weren't just abandoned, they seceded when Rome declined to assist them. That was a political act, not a cultural one. Also it's hard to imagine that these impressive villas were simply left to the elements. Even when families could not afford to run homes of the grander size, they remained in use as industries or farms. What is notable is how quickly cities were abandoned when no longer economically or militarily viable, a process that started in the 4th century. The Saxon settlers from the 6th century onward saw these expansive stone ruins and imagined they were once the swellings of giants.