caldrail

Or is that because the womens rights in Rome seem old-fashioned?

Erm... No. Rome lost the war more than once. However, we should not forget that politics was as important then as today. If your soldiers can't keep the enemy at bay, then lets cut a deal with them before they wreak havoc. Have we got enough gold? Admittedly some cultures really don't care much for talking - yet even the huns did.

Hilted helmets were available long before that although perhaps not everywhere. A thick flange of metal along the brow prevented swords from slipping down the front and hacking off your nose. The wide brim at the rear prevented swords from hacking off your head.

Don't forget the christian bias. Emperors like caligula and nero have been demonised for centuries as examples of excess and pagan decadence. We still see this viewpoint written and filmed today when we really should know better. Caligula was nonetheless a popular figure with the plebs. They weren't close to him, and therefore wouldn't encounter his sense of humour or sociopathic behaviour as courtiers did. He came to power in a tide of popularity and was murdered four years later despised by the senators. I don't think it was entirely proganda though. Hidden away in these stories is a young man with behavioural problems and the only solution having given complete control over the empire was to stick a knife in him. Repeatedly. He certainly had made enemies amongst the influential and lets face it, taunting a decorated and successful soldier like Cassius Chaerea wasn't an astute move. There is bias against Caligula in these stories of him. That seems to happen with all emperors who get the chop - its as if everyone wants to distance themselves from blame and justify that persons death. Very often it could be justified, at least from a certain viewpoint, but not always. I don't believe Caligula grew up in a worse enviroment than anyone else. Rome was an extraordinarily competitive society which almost guarantees skulduggery in high places. I do think his parents have some blame to carry. Children usually develop these personality faults when the parents are either incompetent or simply too busy to care. Germanicus was a busy man - was he a good father? Agrippina the Elder comes across as a woman of stout character but was she too cold? Even worse, we see Caligula paraded as a mascot for the legions dressed in mini-legionary gear (the source of his nickname). He grew up expecting attention and possibly became confused as to why his parents never had the same time for him. On the other hand, it may have been that Caligula was doted on and spoiled absolutely rotten by his parents. If so, then he would have grown up short-tempered, demanding, and thinking he could get away with anything. Come to think of it, that does sound familiar doesn't it?

Chainmail will resist a slashing blow which is why it was so popular in the ancient and medieval world (it can still be found in use today!). It doesn't protect against thrusting attacks very well as a sharp point easily penetrates.

Unlikely? I understand your point of view and you may well be right. But put yourself in Hannibals place. He's committed himself to marching across the alps to outflank the romans. Its not a cakewalk by any means, and he's suffered losses of men, horses, and elephants on the way. If he gives up, his credibility is ruined and the romans remain in a strong strategic position. If he carries on, he MUST find food or his expedition is doomed. One of his commanders is not as moral as the others. Notice that this commander makes the suggestion, and is clearly overruled. It would've have been more convincing if his commander had been given a few sharp words about morality but Hannibal isn't portrayed as considering this idea.

yes I agree by and large, but I would point out that gladiatorial combat became bloodier as time went on because the crowd (and the games promoters) wanted thrills and excitment. Throwing somebody to the lions? Oh they did that last year - yawn. Gladiators were indeed highly skilled fighters (at least those with any survival chances were) and it wasn't cheap to buy, train, and keep them. It is true that the crowd wanted a good fight. The poet Martial wrote a tale based on fact about a fight at the colosseum where both men were allowed the victory palm for delivering the thrills. As for poor fighting, that didn't always condemn a man despite the crowds disappointment. It was just as likely to cause a huge reverse to the career of the games promoter. The mood of a crowd often dictated a mans fate. A crowd galvanised by excitment wanted blood - and usually got it. A bored audience would cough and jeer, muttering about what a plonker the promoter was for putting together such a poor show. In fact, emperors often gave gladiators their freedom to please the crowd and this had no bearing on the owners investment. It was seen as the sign of a generous humane emperor who rewarded courage. The owner of course gritted his teeth and told the trainer to get Ursus The Angry up to scratch by the next games or else

Yes, this is a reflection of human nature. The early romans were derided as porridge-eaters. By the principate, we see wealthy romans spending fortunes on banquets to the extent that some individuals committed scuicide because they could no longer afford it. The poor of course ate bread and whatever else they could grow, purchase, beg, or steal - just as they always had. Success has the effect of making humans lazy. Thats why big businesses and large empires collapse - because the little guys are hungrier and cut away at the big guys back. Thats an over-simplification perhaps but you get the point? Morals evolve in similar ways. Focused disciplined people tend to have strong morals. When money is no object, then what do you do for kicks? You bend the rules, and morals are put aside as impediments to enjoying yourself.

Morale isn't just esprit de corps. That results from a sense of belonging, which requires an organisation with traditions. Morale is the mental state of your men. This can be affected by a number of factors. Faith in your leadership, discipline, availabiltiy of food and water, enviromental hardship, rewards of victory, punishments of defeat or cowardice, allied support... all sorts of things. If one factor goes awry then perhaps you can compensate. If too many factors are involved then eventually the men will get depressed or angry. Caesar - Its time to make that rousing speech I think.

The lorica segmentata protects the shoulders and torso from the expected sword blows from screaming barbarians. It did indeed serve them well, but it wasn't too quick to put on (you would need help from a friend for a good fit) and eventually they reverted to chainmail simply because of convenience.

Hannibal had good reasons not to stay in place. During the trek across the alps he had a meeting with his commanders about the lack of food. One of them suggested to Hannibal that they teach their men to eat human flesh and enjoy it. Hannibal refused this source of nourishment, but his army suffered horribly from starvation. He simply didn't want to have to find food for thousands of soldiers for months on end. Remember that he had no supply trains, he was foraging locally. In actual fact, in his case some of the intended besieged may have been better off.

Agreed. Locusts are the likely culprit. But the ancients knew full well what locusts were since Egypt was sometimes plagued with them. Was this merely an old-wives-tale to hide the real source? A quick-tongued merchant wowing his audience and slipping away when the story gets a bit too popular for comfort?

It was up to the games editor (or the emperor if he was present) to decide a gladiators fate. The crowd of course would heavily influence his decision. Does he justly condemn a man and make himself popular with the plebs? Or does he let him off and ensure his senatorial owner is still on friendly terms? As editor, your future career prospects rest on these decisions. In any case, if the crowd are making loud noises its a fair bet most of them are saying the same thing.

It is interesting that these commentators despise Tiberius. Was that because he made himself too remote? Or was he disliked for choosing not to provide public entertainment? He was also quoted as saying he was rearing a viper - he meant caligula, and if true then he knew full well caligula wasn't suitable for office and probably ensured he wasn't. That way old Tiberius would be remembered as not being so bad. Is that another reason forthe criticism of him - in that he had allowed a bad-apple to rule after him?

Recruitment in the late empire was getting to be a fairly desperate process. Draft dodging was widespread and press gangs operated to volunteer men for service. One emperor decided that two thumbless soldiers were the same as one fit & able soldier so there was no excuse for service. People simply didn't want a military life by that time. Rome was no longer the unified empire of old. People were tired of government interference in their lives and certainly fed up of paying extortionate taxes.

He was capable of it - he just didn't know it. Hannibal was criticised in the ancient world for not knowing what to do with a victory. He could win battles effortlessly but he had no experience of siegecraft and was unaware how undefended Rome was at that time. He was never able to grasp the need to exploit his victories. In fact, it was entirely possible that Rome might have surrendered to Hannibal without much resistance. Rome never really did put up a fight although I notice there were street battles during the Year of Four Emperors (69AD)

True, but we know that the legions posted there had a signal system to call reinforcements from larger forts away from the wall.

Its highly likely that the gesture had regional differences. In sicily today a 'thumbs up' gesture used to get a lift from a passing motorist is in fact a mortal insult and may well get you shot. A gladiator who chose to die (and some did believe or not- it was a matter of professional honour and pride, or possibly some other reason behind the scenes) need only bare his throat. Usually he wouldn't get the choice. A ruthless opponent wasn't going to wait to let his opponent plead for mercy - we know that from the inscription on a tomb that says 'Take heed from my fate and show no mercy'. By being ruthlessly murderous you would quite likely find yourself without mercy one day, so most gladiators did offer their defeated opponents some chance to plead. I doubt very much that gladiators would disarm themselves to allow another to commit scuicide. Once condemned by the games editor, the fatal blow would follow swiftly (Maximus took too long in getting ready to kill Titus of Gaul in the film Gladiator. Had that been for real, the blow would have landed immediately. But then Maximus was a bit of a softie in gladiator terms) Giving a weapon to an opponent and leaving yourself unarmed isn't too clever is it? Not all gladiators were honourable. There were plenty of dirty tricks in use. The killing blow depended on the weapon in use. With a gladius, the preferred method was to plunge the blade through the top of the shoulder and into the heart. That way the blow is fatal and the ribcage doesn't get in the way. Throats were often cut instead, and the boomerang shaped sword of the thraex would be better in this fashion. A spear or trident might be used against the opponents head if no helmet protected him. Now the gesture used by the crowd must have had some relation to the act of killing or not. The traditional thumbs down is still my personal favourite although there's no actual evidence to say thats what was done, and as I've mentioned before, no-one really knows no matter how many books they sell.

We know the various techniques they used but as far as I'm aware the actual codes used remain a mystery. All the signals used by the romans required line-of-sight unless a rider was sent instead. On foggy days this visual communication would have been useless. Fire signals and beacons served at night, and unless its a downpour its still possible to get a fire going as long as the wood you set light to is dry. Inflammable substances like pitch would assist you there.

Roman siegecraft was nicked wholesale from the greeks. Its just that the romans had a much more confrontational approach to getting in than most societies. Of course, they weren't the only ones who conducted assaults. The greeks had done so, and so had the assyrians.

I've been part of meets like this for some of my other interests. I would suggest the site is chosen well ahead of time to allow interested parties to arrange their affairs, and that some kind of informal agenda is put together in case everyone turns up and runs out of conversation quickly. Its a nice idea.

My own view is that Caligula wasn't mad - at least not a raving looney. He was a malignant mickey-taker who enjoyed seeing people suffer. He was a young man of questionable maturity given ultimate power, and oh boy was he determined to find out how far he could push it. Emotionally disturbed I would say. Nasty but not evil in the dramatic sense. As for 'I Claudius', we have to remember this was entertainment - a tv adaption of a novel. Not really a source for insight into caligulas character then but a very good series I thoroughly enjoyed for what it was.

So basically the equestrians become a class of professionals as well as moderately wealthy people. The senatorial class was composed of wealthy men, many of whom were ambitious and some of them absolutely positive that they deserved power rather than that idiot giving the orders. Not suprisingly then, we see the senatorials weakened by purges and plots to the extent that the old families no longer exist. Therefore tradition is also weakened and the glass ceiling over the equestrians isn't so much a barrier that it once was.

I guess I was inspired by all those hollywood epics I used to watch on tv when I was a kid. I saw this huge empire, greedy, decadent, all-powerful, yet strangely vulnerable toward the end. Face it, roman history is the most fantastic soap opera ever. Its got everything. Best all, it happened. For real.

Well I wasn't actually there (contrary to popular rumour) but as I understand the evidence shows partial damage to the palatine hill, not extensive. Certainly not all of it. The fire followed the course of three intersecting roads near to the circus maximus and spread to buildings nearby. The wind was a major factor in its spread, as were servants of greedy landlords setting their flea-bitten insulae ablaze to claim insurance and probably evict difficult tenants without recourse to lawyers. PS - I can ring 911 if you want but I might be a little late.