caldrail

Notice that the horse is merely mentioned, not emphasised. Had the horse been as significant as alexanders steed then a name would have been provided and the beast mentioned throught his career.

Evidence from ireland suggests that in the 6th century ad spring, summer, and autumn never happened for four years. Cold weather was apparent during the late 18th century too when the river thames froze up for a long period. What about our harsh winters of 1947 and 1961? It happens. The earth is wobbling on its axis so occaisional harsh winters are definitely going to happen, besides the el nino effect, or the usual climatic drift that occurrs over time. Climate does not remain static.

Good point. The rating itself could be reworked with this in mind. So scoring system good. ''Fire'' bad. My scoring system was to prove how pointless it was. An emperor might be considered a 'good' emperor because he kept the peace and people prosperous, but did he do that by cruel means? Our view is coloured by entertainment and historical bias. Face it - you can't control an empire the size of SPQR by word of mouth unless you're willing to crack heads. Take Tiberius. Now you can split his reign into three periods. The first when he ruled directly, the second when he let Sejanus run things, the third his permanent retirement holiday in Capri. He was loathed by many romans. Yet his reign was peaceful wasn't it? Wasn't he a successful general? Granted the Sejanus debacle wouldn't have endeared him to senior romans and the fact he disliked public games wouldn't have endeared him to the bored public, but why was the guy so unpopular? Because he didn't lead. He avoided making controversial decisions and shunned public appearances. He was too remote. So although his reign had many good points he was hardly a desirable ruler from the roman view. Yet no-one (sejanus apart) attempted a coup. Macro is supposed to have bumped him off but he only did that as a favour to Caligula. Tiberius was a feeble old man at the time and no-one else seemed bothered whether he lived or died. That brings me back to my original point. How do we judge? Its all opinion really.

Yes, the fact Claudius wrote a book on the language does indicate it was known and used to some extent. Rather like welsh is today perhaps?

Established religions don't suit everyone. Look how fragmented christianity is today. Islam has similar problems although they prefer to present a united front.

A previous post of mine was a bit misleading - I should point out that the earliest romans voted for their kings in much the same way as dark age english. So although the kings weren't latin it didn't mean that they were invaders.

There is definitely a question of where the swords were obtained, and who owned them. After Marius threw open the doors to army service for any Tom, Dick, or Harrius it forced the legions to supply weapons. Previously you turned up with anything you could afford to some extent, but now a poor man had to be armed. I understand that the cost of a sword could be subtracted from your pay, but did the legionary own it when the sword was paid for? Individual soldiers were still at at liberty to buy their own weapons provided they conformed to standard pattern.

Saved? The east tried to do that and the western roman population reacted with horror. For them it was a return to the dark days of heavy taxes and army recruitment. The wealth of conquest had long gone and everyone was paying through the nose to support an increasingly inefficient state which demanded duty with little reward. I really don't believe the west could have been saved. It had run out of cultural steam.

Its unlikely the romans would use any gender division given the male domination of society. Women were offically the property of fathers, guardians, or husbands (although I am aware that roman women did at times escape this restriction) and although they would be expected to run the household, I doubt a virile roman male would feel comfortable in a feminised dwelling.

I'm not sure of the source but I remember a quote saying that the noise of living above a bathouse was undesirable.

Its also true that men were given day to day duties that seperated them from their 8-man teams for short periods. They might be posted as guards on civic buildings, bath attendants, clerical work, as batmen, as labourers - whatever the commander decided was required. It would have been rare to send men any distance although soldiers could apply for leave much as they do today.

Its difficult to pinpoint the origin of Rome because early writers smothered it with legend and myth. Etruscan kings did rule the area and they did so as part of their realm, not as a seperate province. From the etruscan view it was simply etruscan territory. From the roman view it was a city ruled by foreign kings. Early warbands were very ad hoc formations of lightly armed and armoured men. Typical protection was a smll square or circular breastplate, possibly greaves if you could afford them, and a simple helmet. Warbands such as these would have been used for a raiding style of conflict rather than the organised campaigning of later periods. In fact, organisation would have been poor. Warbands would have relied on foraging from the local area.

Gladius Hispaniensis - the spanish sword with a slightly leaf shaped blade as used during the republic. Went out of favour before the principate to be replaced by the 'mainz' style. This in turn was replaced by the 'pompeii' pattern by Nero's time which remained in service (albeit reducing in length) until the 3rd century ad when it started becoming abandoned in favour of the longer cavalry Spatha.

The armies decline was hand in hand with the decline of the west as a state - I would say both part of the cause and because of it. The enviroment can affect a society terribly. The ancient minoans were destroyed as a culture after the explosion of Santorini caused a tsunami of epic proportions. They simply couldn't recover and devolved into cannibalistic tribes. Its just that an event of that nature never hit the romans. The pompeii eruption was nowhere severe enough. However, some people believe that an eruption of krakatoa did affect the late roman empire as a whole, and we know that increasing disease had huge impact.

Actually I was missing the point wasn't I? The romans were very superstitious people. Every observable event in the world around them might have divine purpose or contain warnings for the wise. So in all likliehood the addition of medusa/gorgon motifs were simply there as wards against bad luck?

A few posts ago I mentioned that the gladius evolved from a long pointed, gracefully curved blade to a shorter and straighter weapon before the 3rd century ad. Now I'd mentioned that this might be partly due to the influence of the doctores (gladiator trainers) that were used occaisionally to improve legionaries swordplay, but I was left thinking - well that can't be the only reason. So here's another. The legions were being cheated. Follow this arguement.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Hello centurion, what can do for you?" "Ave swordsmith. I need two hundred gladii like this.... Can you you supply them?" "Certainly sir. That will be two months work at... (sharp intake of breath)... two thousand coins" "What! Too expensive. Make them for five hundred or I'll take the work elsewhere." "Right you are then sir." "Good. Now you've seen sense I'll leave you this one to work from. They must all be like this. Good day to you." "Pssst.. Take a look lad, has he gone? Right... Take this sword and grind off an inch or two. Then we'll copy it. I'm not wasting good iron on that arrogant so and so. More profit for us you see...." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder how true this scenario is? Caveat emptor was fundamental to roman trade, and for many years it must have been the same with the legions.

I know the legionaries could be re assigned to different parts of the Empire depending on where they were needed most,but would they go individually to far flung places or would it be as the centuriae that they got there orders?Or even the Cohort? Thanks,Longbow. Soldiers were very much part of their unit, and to split them unnecessarily was frowned upon. Bear in mind the roman talent for organisation was not going to keep track of hundreds of men going here and there all over the place. Men were part of their legion first, and this legion was posted to a region where it would conduct its duties. Men were always posted away from their home country to prevent a rebellion forming. Chohorts would then be assigned postings in nearby areas, but still within easy reach of legion command. Individual men might be given missions away from their unit, but they would always be expected back. The important point is command was only possible when the commander knew where his men were. Any commander who lost track of his troops probably wasn't going home in triumph

One thing that we need to understand about war in the ancient world is that it was up close and personal. It takes a fair bit of nerve to stand in front of someone armed and armoured just like you and go toe to toe for ten or twenty minutes before one of you gets too tired or makes a mistake. Face it, the result can be very fatal. In order to get men to fight like this you need to inspire them - they need to feel they need to do this and that they stand a chance of victory (even a courageous last stand can be seen as such). The great victories were won not so much by the men themselves, but the leaders who won their hearts and minds and made them believe they could do it. This is why armies in the ancient world are so hit and miss. Without the essential leasdership factor they become a hesitant armed mob.

The huns did settle down in some numbers. Part of the reason for migrating west was find new areas to live.

I have heard of this same thoery and to expand on it, it ties into the idea that every 500 or so years there is a climate change and using a rough idea of 500 or so years you can trace back when we have records of mass migrations of people, this could be an explanation for the sudden influx of barbarians moving south when during the late republic, early and high empire there were none. Climate change is continuous - it happens every year, usually in small increments. Climate is a dynamic enviroment and human memory can be very short and selective. The climate has changed over the course of the empire. But also remember the coastline, so important for trade, has also changed. Ports have silted up and the northward tectonic movement of the african plate has caused the mediterranean coast to buckle. Some places have risen and fallen against sea level (and still are!). Volcanic activity resulting from this has affected local economies. Romans devastated local ecologies in trapping animals for the arena and over-farming is nothing new. Enviromental factors have influenced things but the fall of the west was more to do with economic, political, and demographic change.

Doesn't this discussion rely on what we regard as good rulership? Rome would have emphasised different things to us and lets be honest, we look on the roman period from hindsight. What was important? Was it peace? Prosperity? Military glory? Survival? I think the romans would have as many different opinions as we do. A farmer wants peace and a healthy market for his produce. An artisan wants plenty of money in the hands of his customers. A general wants an excuse to conquer or progress his political career. Senators want power and full coffers. A slave? Enough food and as few duties as possible. So its horses for courses. How about a scoring scheme? I bet that would give some suprising results! What about... +1 point for each year in power +5 points for a peaceful death +5 points for each legion raised +10 points for each province conquered +20 points for being deified -1 point for each public protest -5 points for a coup attempt -5 points for a provincial rebellion -5 points for each battle lost -10 points for being declared an enemy of the state -10 points for having his memory erased Obviously I'm not going to go through every emperor scoring their efforts! But you see my point? Our personal preferences are sometimes interesting but how do we actually judge the worthiness of an emperor?

I would have thought this was simply down to the greek influence on roman culture. Medieval europe concentrated on dragons and sea serpents as its nemesis I think. These days we have a strange fascination for vampires and werewolves.

Oh yes - Augustus thought the region was safe enough for Varus to earn his spurs as a military man in relative safety. Strictly speaking it was - settlements were expanding, revenues were starting to come back, and the germans seemed willing after all to accept roman ways. However, it was Arminius who upset those plans. He rallied german resentment against Rome and had the cheek to tell Varus that a rebellion was in progress personally. It was a well laid trap. However ambitious Arminius may have been, his plan to rule Germania as king fell apart within ten years and he got himself assassinated. I wonder if roman money was behind that, or was it just envy from a rival?

Yes - without shadow of a doubt the roman army changed. Well it would, it was around for more than a thousand years not including the byzantines. First we have the tribal armies, then the greek style, then the republican, then the principate (which is the classic roman legion we immediately think of) then the 'dark age' style army of the collapsing west. Don't be fooled though, the romans lost a lot of battles early on, not just in their declining years. They had to bribe the gauls to go away in the 390's BC. Hannibal repeatedly ruined roman prestige, and just to emphasise the point, more than one bandit on the loose ran rings around the generals sent against them.

Recent archaeology has uncovered roman settlements much further into germany than previously thought. The principate was well on the way to colonising the near germanic regions and they certainly wouldn't have bothered unless they thought it worthwile. Whilst the resources from these regions probably weren't lucrative, it was definitely worth building a friendly buffer zone against the wilder barbarians. We know from the activities of german knights in later centuries that as they went deeper into the forest the natives got nastier. Varus was told to collect taxes from the newly colonised region. Augustus sent him because he'd married into the royal family and a lawyer wasn't going to get the respect without some military service. It was only the machinations of Arminius that turned things over. Varus has been decribed as 'a judge, but not a judge of men'. I agree with that. He was keen to quash a rebellion before augustus got annoyed and fell into the trap laid by arminius with almost careless haste. The varian disaster changed roman foreign policy forever and remains a defining moment in roman history.