caldrail
-
Posts
6,246 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
145
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by caldrail
-
-
Just to add my two cents worth, the problem was not so much the celtic sword but the poor technique of the men wielding them. The celtic fighting style was aggressive and brash but depended on individual prowess. After all, a fast, confident, aggressive man will quickly assume the upperhand in any fight between individuals. The romans countered this with their discipline and training, besides the afore-mentioned swordplay.
-
I was under the impression that Colchis was in northern Turkey.
-
Male noses tend to increase in size as we get older, at least for us europeans, and since people in power would often be more mature a large nose might be a noticeable feature.
Thats just conjecture though.
-
Trouble is, people very rarely chose their profession in ancient rome....
An animal trainer or musician would suit me.
-
You allegation tht a "palace is just a palace" runs counter to all we know of the symbolism developed on the palatine by Augustus (relating to Apollo); to the work of Domitian and later Hadrian - all within the same broad cultural environment as Nero.
Is the Temple of Venus & Rome (AMOR/ROMA) withoy symbolism or deeper meaning?
Sorry, Caldrail but Nero and his advisers were much more sophisticated than you make out. Demonstrably so IMHO.
Phil
PS Is there any purpose in my continuing this dialogue with the deaF?
I'm not blind. I'm sorry also but you're chasing intellectual concepts about things that are nothing more than decoration. Sophistication? Now thats a dangerous word to use when judging peoples efforts. Where did I say they were unsophisticated? Nero was educated, patronised and practised the arts, led a real party lifestyle, and made some really dumb decisions. One of which was to build this large house for his personal use on land that shortly before had been areas of dwellings for his subjects until the great fire. He just couldn't resist the temptation to show off.
Temples are decorated with imagery of mythology. So? Is there some secret message hidden away amongst the marble busts and frescos? No, there isn't. All humans are able to determine patterns (thats how we interpret the world) and sometimes we long to be able to see more than the next guy. I was going to say lets not stray into Dan Brown territory. I've changed my mind.
Phil25 - If you think there is some hidden message in the Domus Aurea - Then please enlighten us and stop playing mind games.
-
What I find strange is that during the fall of the Empire, Rome was unable to tap in to the vast amount of manpower that she had during the Punic War period. Was it because the Empire's populace was so disillusioned that they did not mind the transition into the Dark Ages? Or was the Empire in fact overwhelmed?
The populace was not so willing to be roman any more. The vast wealth of conquest had been squandered long ago and taxes were raised high to pay for an increasingly heavy and inefficient administration. Draft dodging was common, press gangs were employed to get people recruited, rural communities were opting out of roman control. The whole edifice was top heavy and crumbling. Barbarians didn't rush in and destroy the empire - far from it - they wanted its wealth and power for themselves.
-
Some people today believe that the earth is flat.
Some people believe that the pyramids are alien warehouses.
Some people believe that Stonehenge is a UFO refuelling facility.
Some people believe that the Maya are descendants of stranded aliens.
Some people believe that Atlantis was a civilisation of superior wisdom and technology.
Some people believe that the Domus Aurea has deep mystical significance.
You know what? Its all moo pooh. The earth is very spherical, pyramids are monuments, stonehenge is a crude calendar, the maya are very human, Atlantis was a city that once existed on the volcanic cone within Santorini (the cone is no longer there by the way!), and the 'Nero Code' is best left to Dan Brown.
What angles are you talking about? Its a palace Phil25, nothing more. It was a statement of wealth and status. There is no deep inner meaning to it any more than the pyramids have deep arcane secrets.
Ancients are just as dodgy as modern ones - I agree - but just as revealing.
-
Throughout the Gallic Wars and the Civil War, Caesar is constantly finding himself in need of food supplies for his armies. Many notable military historians and generals (Hans Delbruck , Napoleon) have criticized this as a weakness of Caesar's. As they say, an 'army marches on its stomach.' Supply was always an ancient warfare problem, but it is fair to say that Caesar found himself in trouble with this above the norm.
I've always had a hard time believing that a man so remarkably careful and calculated as Caesar was would have a problem with something like supply logistics. Therefore it is my hypothesis that (in many cases) Caesar deliberately undersupplied his men, as a method of getting them to perform super human feats of war, always with the promise that food was over the next hill, or in the camp of an enemy, or past the walls of an enemy camp. Leading the donkey on with the carrot so to speak.
Thoughts?
Any army requires its men to be fed in order to retain fighting fitness. Now that can mean a large number of suppers provided in one place. Think about - You've got an army of twenty thousand men in the wilderness without air drops, lorry convoys, or a handy supermarket down the road. Foraging from the local area will feed them for a few days although this will not endear your army to the local population, whose pets and farm animals are greedily consumed.
No. I don't believe Caesar underfed his men deliberately. It was more likely that he insisted on rationing what supplies he could muster. In fact, Caesar most certainly did have logistic difficulties. At Alesia he had men wandering far and wide seeking supplies of food and timber. When he discovered the gaul relief army was on its way he ordered his men to gather one months supply because he knew he would be under siege. Caesar could only do that once. In any event, underfed men do not perform superhuman feats in warfare. They either desert or mutiny. He couldn't promise his men food at Alesia because when Vercingetorix surrendered the gauls no longer had any.
-
I was going to say yes - albeit with a limp. However on second thought it would be likely that influenza would have finished me off in my twenties. When you think about it, modern cures and treatments are worth their weight aren't they?
-
"Now I can really live like a human being..."
Nero, on completion of his Golden House and parkland surroundings amongst the ruin of the great fire.
-
Battles the Legions were involved in rarely contained the "one-vs-one" aspect of ancient warfare that we are used to seeing glamorized by Hollywood. The Legion/Cohort/Century moved as one, gradually pushing their enemies back, as was the case in confrontations with the Gauls and Germanic Tribes, who tended to uses the tactic of massed infantry attacks, with no order. If their first wave didn't drive the Romans from the field, then the battle ended up mostly as a general rout .
IMO, Spartacus and his revolt did so well against the Romans ( not including the fact that most of the veteran soldiers were not in Italia proper), because of the type of "one-on-one" fighting that the gladiators were specifically trained to perform. Varus, and the Disaster of Teutonberg Forest, IMO is a result, not only of surprise and other factors, but of the fact that the 3 Legions were disorganized enought for the Germans to battle in close quarter "one vs. one" fights that they were accustomed to.
Just some of my thoughts
Its an absolute fallacy that Spartacus led an army of gladiators. He had around a hundred of them (although more would have come on side later) and the bulk of his army were ordinary slaves of all occupations. Bear in mind also that the former gladiators went their seperate ways twice, so the numbers were reduced again. Oenamaus and his band were killed early on, followed by Crixus's bunch. Spartacus did well because he led a guerilla campaign. He met his end because he was forced to fight a pitched battle with the legions - something the romans knew how to handle. When that happened, the followers of Spartacus were totally outclassed.
As for the varian disaster, the legions were as organised as always. Granted Varus wasn't a brilliant commander, but he had skilled and experienced subordinates. The reason that three legions were destroyed was because Arminius ensured the roman advance travelled along a remote forest trail, so the roman army was strung out much longer than normal. It was vulnerable to flank attack from the forests and the rear was picked off in ambushes. By the time the advance reached Kalkriese (where Arminius had arranged an ambush 'funnel') they had already lost their support.
In a battle between men armed with swords the fight devolves to one-on-one anyway. A sword can only be wielded against one person at a time despite the antics of fantasy films. Now it is true that gladiators were trained to fight a single opponent but they didn't always do this. There were occaisions such as the 'wooden island' style fight where they fought multiple opponents at any one time. Gladiators didn't have any real advantage except for the level of training they received and they certainly weren't used to the chaos of a pitched battle.
Roman legions employed teamwork more effectively than barbarians, whose 'Yell loudly and charge like madmen' style of combat does have serious drawbacks.
-
The Battle of Masada certainly suggest that realtionship between the rulers and those occupied was not good. Lead by Eleazar the Jews put up a good fight eventually the Legions had to build a ramp so they could gain access to the fortress.
Masada was occupied by a splinter group of jews known as sicarii, or knifemen. They weren't jewish patriots in the accepted sense and the romans had good reason to see them dealt with. As for putting up a good fight, well no not really, it was more like a desperate struggle to keep the romans out. Masada was a good choice of retreat. The rocky plateau it stands on is nearly isolated. The ramp was built despite the efforts of the sicarii to shoot the builders dead, and large numbers of jewish slaves were employed to build it - it wasn't just the legions themselves. Not only that, the roman engineers had stone piers inserted to prevent the ramp from collapsing and ensured that positions for ballistae/catapulta were made to keep the sicarii's heads down. Truth was, the assault on masada was a foregone conclusion. Having breached the outer wall built originally for Herod the romans found an inner wall had been built of loose stone, rubble, and timber. The romans set fire to this and only by a favourable change of wind was this not a disaster for them, because the flames went out of control and threatened their siege engines. Meanwhile the sicarii realised the game was up and famously chose to commit mass scuicide to spare themselves from roman retribution. Only one woman and her children survived having hidden in a sewer.
The sicarii were seen as dangerous troublemakers by the romans, and they weren't any part of an official army organised by Judaea.
For those who are interested - the ramp is still there today.
-
And I still argue that while that might be one facet of the reasoning (and I do not disagree with you), it does not begin to accommodate all the angles that need to be understood.
But I would question one thing, and that is whether there is a touch of anachronism in the modern/ancient analogy?
Phil
I would say not. As I've mentioned before human beings are no different now than in the ancient world. Our reactions to situations are broadly the same, although our culture allows and expects different behaviour. Now I do agree that modern extravagance tends to be more isolated (big palatial houses are rural more often than not) but thats more a reflection of the modern obsession with privacy, something the ancients never worried about.
The romans weren't an alien species. Much of their decision-making and behaviour are instantly recognisable to us, and I see it as no coincidence that much of our modern western life resembles theirs.
-
I am of the belief that the main reason for the fall of Rome was due to barbarian incursions, rather than internal conflicts. At its height in the 2nd Century AD, Rome could only be viewed as an impossible miracle come true. The Empire was colossal in size in size, and was kept alive, not because of her ability to defend her frontiers, but because her frontiers never experienced large-scale pressure. When they did (during the 3rd/4th Century), they crumbled.
Basically, what I am saying is that the Roman Empire was not so much weaken, more overwhelmed.
Its true the west was under pressure but the situation was actually very confused. Whole sections of the empire at grass roots were no longer keen to be roman. The great wealth of the early principate had been squandered since there wasn't any conquest and plunder to replce it. All roads lead to Rome and the massive consumer society of that city paid for imports from around the empire and beyond. Cash was disappearing abroad faster than it the profits of export. In order to pay for the infrastructure of the roman state this required higher taxes. In order to protect this state it required men enlisted in the armies, something no longer seen as a desirable profession in later times. Who will bring in the harvest this year when all our sons are defending the Danube? Many of the soldiers of the invading armies were actually roman - and many defenders were goths.
Therefore what we see is a decline in patriotism. Less inclination to do your bit for Rome. People were becoming more insular and in fact there were some deep divisions about religion. There were still pagans amongst the widely different christian faiths such as Monatists, Gnostics, Arians, Orthodox etc. People were worried about their future and not concerned with politics.
I see things as very much the opposite of your view. Roman society was losing its coherence and focus.
-
Its true that Rome was determined to succeed. Notice however that this persistence comes from an individual - the commander. Rome was a competitive society and the men chosen to lead armies needed victories for their careers as much as their continued health. What the men thought is not recorded but remember they had little choice but to obey. There were some mutinies amongst the legions.
-
One thing I've noticed about the extravagantly wealthy and famous is that they do like extravangant dwellings. There's nothing discreet about such people. Modern celebrities are exactly the same - its an outward symbol of their ego and status. Nero was no different. Once mother was out of the way he had no impediment to express himself in such a way. Remember that he was feted and cheered by the public, and sucked up to by those people closest to him. Nero was in a way divorced from reality because he had little direct contact with it. Of course he knew some people were poor. He saw that every day but that was a fact of everyday life - they were lesser mortals. If you doubt this I can assure you how easy it is to become like that. My own experience in rock bands has shown me how our perception and self image changes according to other peoples reactions to you. I stand by what I said previously - that Nero had the Golden House built to house his own ego.
-
It might be useful to remember that to all intents and purposes the third reich was an attempt to recreate the glories of the roman empire even if unconsiously. It would suprise me not one jot to learn that roman and nazi salutes were similar.
However I do think a roman salute existed, whatever format it took. An army organised in the manner of the romans is going to need some method of declaring respect for seniority - thats an aspect of human nature. In fact, the senior roman officers would likely demand some form of acknowledgement from their men.
-
No. Cohorts remained part of their parent legion. If more men were needed, then a cohort might be sent as support but I don't think this was standard practise. It was more likely they'd send another legion or more auxillaries. Or perhaps allies if it comes down to it. Caesar used gaulish cavalry in his campaigns.
-
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.
-
Scoring system bad. Some people that were declared enemy of the state were actually the good guys. Too many flaws with your scheme.
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.
The Masada Mess
in Historia in Universum
Posted
Wood was more available 2000 years ago.