caldrail

A river wharf more likely but the location of a trade post was not contested. Water transport was the most preferred means of getting goods around in the Roman Empire, which indicates that the much vaunted road system wasn't what we expect in todays thinking.

The existence of a ship is not necessarily what it appears to be. Certainly it points to navigable waterways which can change considerably over time, but a similar wreck uncovered by Time Team was found to have been moored merely to stop erosion

Because if you move or disturb the find you lose the context and vital historical information can be lost.

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.

They're filming it now. There was an accident on set and people got hurt in some kind of fireball.

Found this by accident. Nice atmosphere, and for this site, a lot more topical than most songs

The problem isn't piracy as such, but pirates who become good at it and organise themselves as effectively as the military forces they end up facing. Piracy in the Mediterranean was a serious issue, it sucks profits from the economy and makes travel dangerous, as indeed Caesar found for himself. We can immediately discount film, tv, and computer games as comparisons - they're just fantasy and the creators of such media are free to make what they want of piracy. Real piracy is potentially dangerous but the pirates are preying on helpless merchant shipping as they always have done - and still do. They make bold quick attacks knowing they can intimidate ordinary sailors. Or just be dishonest, as Spartacus found when he tried to hire a pirate fleet to take him and his followers to Sicily. As soon as the money was aboard ship they sailed away and left him stranded. But your post betrays a certain expectation of modern naval experience. Roman ships had no large calibre guns or long range missiles, torpedoes, etc, just a lot of armed men, and catching a lightly loaded pirate ship[ with a naval craft back then was not so easy. The Romans literally had to catch them unless they assaulted the pirate base because at sea the only means the Romans have to stop them is by ramming, spreading fire, or boarding actions. That's not easy, not even for a 'professional' navy.

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')

"Illusion of deference to the Senate" is a rationale for explaining the anomalies if you accept Augustus was an emperor. I simply don't accept that view. When Augustus described himself as Princeps Senatus he meant it. Yes, he was a very influential man to say the least, but power alone does not make you a monarch. He didn't impose - he utilised the rights and privileges awarded him by the Senate - and acceptance from the Senate was the hallmark of Roman leaders right through to the end in the West - which is why I contend the Republic actually lasted in official terms until 476.

Following on from some recent themes it might be worth taking a generic look at Roman political power. I mean, all that those Roman leaders had to do was click their fingers, right? It's becoming apparent to me it really wasn't that simple. Even Dictator, the most powerful of offices the Republic could assign, was in theory subject to veto. The issue here is that we tend to make huge assumptions about the Romans without really understanding how their society actually worked. The worst of these tendencies is to assume a modernesque style. But Rome belonged to the ancient world and was a fairly unique version of civilisation on top of that. Let's take an example to illustrate what I mean. When we read Gaius by Suretonius we find that Caligula is given absolute power in recognition that he was the son of Germanicus and therefore bound to be a brilliant leader. Later still we read that Caligula, a man who regarded the Senate as a bunch of time wasters and an obstruction to his greatness, is asking the Senate for permission to hold games. It seems absurd. Yet what we have here is an example of demarcation in Roman power. In military terms a man might be given imperium, the right to command an army, and so if he's allocated legions, he may command them. However what is usually overlooked is that the Romans don't give power without strings attached. That leader must also have provincia, a field of responsibility, which described why the leader may have legions at his beck and call, what he is expected to use them for, and the geopgraphic limits of his command. In one region he may be entitled to lead armies. In another, he isn't. The Roman writers don't emphasise this aspect of military control because they assumed everyone understood it. Political power was also demarcated. So in our example, Caligula has the top level right to make decisions, but unless he can change Roman law, he cannot brush aside the rights of others (which of course is exactly what he thought he could get away with). Roman politics was an exercise in managing privilege. It was the erosion of the rights of the Roman people that led to the Dominate when Rome became a full autocracy. But if you notice, during the Principate, the Caesars who led Rome did not invest all their power in one title. Their power was the sum total of privileges and the respect others had for their virtus, auctoritas, and potestas. Virtue, authority, and power. You could have two men assigned the same privileges yet there would be differences in how lesser mortals perceived them as leaders. So the question must be asked, was absolute power in Rome quite what we expect it to have been?

Ah, but Augustus did not rule. Personal rule over the citizens of Rome was the same as monarchy, the same as enslavement, the same as tyranny, the entire rationale that the Republic had been formed to avoid. Now I can't deny the sum total of his titles, magistracies, and privileges were pretty influential to say the least, but remember he reformed the Senate. He reformed the military. He obstructed irregularities in democracy though I accept not everyone will see that as having been positive, and he sought to create a strong foundation for the Republic. Yes, that's right, you read it here first. The idea he swept away the Republic and started some kind of imperialist 'empire' is basically bullshit invented by later Roman writers whose government in their own day was more autocratic and so they simply described Augustus in terms of their own experience without analysing changes in Roman society. During Augustus' lifetime, he was hailed as Saviour of the Republic (and I do concede he encouraged such a view). By the tiome Zosimus wrote about him in the 6th century Dominate, Augustus had become an absolute monarch who abolished the aristocracy. Little wonder the Middle Ages invented the term 'Emperor' to describe the 'Victorious Generals' who led Rome. Augustus himself stated in one of his edicts that his influence was the 'fruit of his labour'. Well, if running the empire wasn't the actual work he was up to, what was it? He remained true to his promise of ensuring the Republic would come to no harm. If that meant Rome must accept a certain level of leadership to maintain good order and prosperity, so be it, but the Julio-Claudian dynasty wasn't supposed to be about ruling the empire, it was supposed to be about preventing conflict for power. If you read the sources carefully, there was a number of people trying to grab power of Rome besides the usual players we read about. Augustus knew this.

Sorry but I had to post this one because it's an exploration of the area I live in. Welcome to Wiltshire the mysterious Neolithic past of a certain town near me....

I see that sort of perspective quite a lot, but to be honest, Octavian wasn't entirely as clever as people try to portray him. His success relied heavily on having good men around him and some people do note he wasn't a great army leader. His earlier career had more to do with obstructing Antony than his own progression. When he had the precise circumstances that many a future Caesar would have died for - to be the last man standing, popular, with liberal powers, and command of a victorious army, what do we hear from Suetonius? That he considered standing down. Octavian was lucky that Antony was not such a gifted leader. I do agree Cicero was plotting - yeah well that was Rome after all - but really Octavian seems to fitted in with Cicero's idea rather better than you want to acknowledge. But I don't think Cicero saw Octavian as a servant, more that he recognised why Octavian was so motivated and decided it would be in his interest if Octavian were allowed to be 'useful' further.

An almost whimsical look at Calleva Atrebatum, the center of the Atrebates kingdom before the Roman occupation. Calleva Atrebatum - Wikipedia

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.

Wait.. What? Berenice Troglodytica? I knew there was a thriving port on the Red Sea coast of Egypt used by ther Roman Empire for trade with India, but I had no idea they were cave dwellers.

Army using Roman terms? Oh it'll need something more radical. Rome did not use a national army - too risky to put all the nation's military power under one commander. Each legion was a self contained army all of its own, even in the late empire, though regional armies were developing with permanent command of their own. Do you really want your politicians commanding military force? Imagine Donal Trump having the right to lead four legions of US Marines based in Florida?

Odd. I was always of the opinion that Picts were natives of the region, I had no idea it was disputed.

It's a question of style and the relative qualities of the sword and shield. To cover all possibilities would require an entire book, but regarding Roman soldiers, we have men fighting almost shoulder to shoulder thrusting in the gap between shields, which were normally rectangular and large (oval shields were in common use too but mostly with auxiliaries). In Roman fashion the shield takes the brunt of defence because the sword is restricted in movement, and in fact the shield becomes a useful blunt instrument too if required. The thing is, when we get to the imperial era, we're told that legionaries swung their swords as much as thrusted which suggests open order fighting and relying on armour as much as a shield. This would free up the sword for more creative use, including parries and so forth, but requires more skill, and typically a Roman legionary was only taught a basic set of moves "by the numbers" ands practised relentlessly if the legion was up to par. This is where a shortsword begins to lose its primary advantage and given the gladius was slowly shortening on average along with gladiator weapons (the development was informally linked), little wonder the legions began adopting the longer spatha (cavalry sword) in order to keep an enemy further back, especially as the Centurionate withered and weaponry skills declined.

You all know who Messalina was... Surely? Well no matter, grab some popcorn, cans of lager, sit back and enjoy this movie romp. Don't expect historical accuracy though, be warned....

And despite reports of zombies wandering the town that night, Rome still makes no official statement. It's an official cover up....

Let's not get carried away. The Egyptian grain supplied the City of Rome, not the empire as a whole, and there were frequent shortages. Augustus banned 'useless mouths' from the city, Claudius was pelted with stale crusts, and I believe there was a shortage during Nero's reign too, just to name three events.

Caesar was actually quite benign as it turned out, but he had certainly been involved in conspiracies. He and Crassus had planned to rush into the Senate and murder as many of its members as possible to grab power, but the details of the plot aren't known and it was never carried out. Was his planned massive games restricted by the Senate really a ploy to crowd armed men into Rome? The Senate thought it might be.

Not really suprised. Human beings have always demonstrated a capacity for getting drunk or out of their heads on strange substances. The Egyptians are known to have. I understand there's been some discoveries about this sort of thing in caves used by our primeval ancestors.