caldrail
-
Posts
6,248 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
146
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by caldrail
-
-
I think the flood theory is a bit misguided. I have heard of evidence that the western Sahara region once suffered a very large inundation but that would only matter locally, it wouldn't cause mass migrations. More of interest is the history of the Sahara region as a whole. As you might know, it became a desert relatively recently and for a long time it had been a lush semi-tropical rainforest, later a savanah, which rather indicates the writing was on the wall.
The thing is, some academics have gotten to thinking that the Nile used to be sourced in the west of Africa and flowed across the Sahara region before turning north. The satellite imagery confirms potential geology to support this. The case involves an old map showing a Nile River coming from the west, but to my mind, that could just as easily be a distortion in the mapping of such a large and unknown area.
Anyway, my point is that migration toward the Nile Valley had more to do with the dessication of North Africa - climate change - than a specific natural cataclysm.
-
Not impossible, but I'm always a little wary of theories that involve cataclysmic impacts. Human beings love the drama of things smashing into each other - Hollywood has mined that particular theme for a long time, and indeed, may well have encouraged it, because I notice the Victorians were much more sensitised to bumps if their use of language is anything to go by.
If the theory is true, then the unfortunate people of Sodom were subjected to a shocking event indeed. But meteor impacts leave specific signs after the event. Is that evidence available?
-
The point about the limes is that they were not fortifications. Neither was the stone barrier at Hadrian's Wall despite the usual depiction of towers and crenellations (the walkway was not wide enough for practical defence purposes). These constructions were barriers to control passage across the frontier, not prevent it. In North Africa the walls link one side of certain valleys to the other, the objective being to obstruct free passage of mounted people. The trajanic wall in eastern Europe (nothing to do with the emperor Trajan, this was a 4th century construct) was the same, obstructing horsemen from the distant east. In fact I can only think of two walls that were deliberately obstructive, one at Alesia (okay, that was two), and the wall built by Crassus to contain Spartacus and his horde. Neither of those were frontiers but military constructions built to control a battle. Note that by the later empire the Romans had all but given up using such barriers and relied on intercepting intrusions inside Roman territory.
-
This is actually a distortion. When you talk to expert geneticists it's apparent that recreating mammoth DNA isn't exactly simple - you can't just expect surviving DNA strands to successfully replicate an entire animal. What is likely is spawning a hybrid animal - an elephant with mammoth characteristics - might happen a lot sooner.
-
Similar clues are available in the sources if you care to note. One that springs to mind is the senatorial trial of Galba c.150bc in which he gets let off because his children were present and crying their eyes out. But it's more fundamental than that. The division between humiliores and honestiores is case of society giving preferential treatment to the upper classes (if you're a slave, there's little justice to be had).
-
Have you ever come across British humour from that period? Suprisingly Romanesque. You'll see what I mean
-
You mean a list that contains Asterix the Gaul as a 'best film of Ancient Rome'? I wouldn't make too much effort on this. It's only someone's opinions after all.
-
Fiction.
-
What was going on here? Was Severus doing some manual labour to please his soldiers? (Plutarch mentions in the life of Gaius Marius how soldiers much loved commanders who 'shared their food and labour'. And Tacitus incidentially makes mildly scornful descriptions of an officer in Pannonia in ad14 who went everywhere by carriage).
Or has SSeverus walked into his office and saw everyone lazing about, quaffing honeyed wine, chatting and gossiping? Right you lot, off your backsides, and get yourselves down to the tile kilns. MOVE!
Makes you wonder doesn't it?
-
No. You're jumping on a bandwagon. I agree padded protection saw some limited application in the Roman Empire - we know that. I agree that the use of padded protection was discussed in a late empire treatise on how to improve the Roman legion - you offered the excerpt. What I'm telling you is that you shouldn't be so quick to assume fact from very fragmentary suggestions. You offer two reliefs on Roman monuments to somehow prove that a garment not openly mentioned in context of legionary use was in actually in widespread use, and as I pointed out, your interpretation of those reliefs can be questioned - there is no context to confirm those garments are exactly what you say they are.
A major point to be contended is pseudo-statistical, and that alone should make anyone wary. You claim padded protection must have been in common use because of some kind of aggregative impression of production scale. Bear in mind that the legions utilised artisans within their ranks and employed civilian artisans whenever necessary. Also bear in mind that artisans did not have to create metal armour suits in one go. They had an option to make parts constantly and store them for future use/sale. Also realise that although the legion supplied the gear in most circumstances, it was a hire purchase agreement with the legionary, who had an option to buy his own outside of military logistics, and the question of what happened to all that armour when legionaries retired from service is not adequately answered.
You could argue chainmail is a little different, but the Romans did not seem to suffer difficulties with it any more than the other users of such armour before and since, and had the advantage of a more organised supply network.
Slugging it out? You have to sometimes. Otherwise we could spread all sorts of nonsense and find ourselves looking back at historical subjects with modern bias, invention, and fantasy.
-
Sufficient? I'll give you credit for an interesting comeback, but please note important aspects.
Firstly the document only survives as a medieval copy. Whilst that probably hasn't affected the text greatly, the document showed be approached with some caution.
Secondly, the document relates not on the current state of the Roman military but how it might be possible to improve it. In other words, a suggestive text rather in the same vein as De Re Militaris.
Thirdly, the origin of the document is not precisely dated but reckoned to be around the 4th or 5th century, probably toward the latter. The Roman legion of this time is a very different beast to the classic legion we all know and love. What must be considered is the influence of 'barbarian' equipment, since the standardisation of the legion at this late stage had all but gone.
Fourthly - and directly referencing your post - to who and what period is the author discussing?
I will concede that padded protection was not unknown to the Romans (I'm thinking of arm and leg protection of gladiators, though this was not to protect against opposing weapons but to safeguard the fighter from hampering his own efforts by colliding with his own shield) thus I will give you a point - you came back with supporting information. However the connection with earlier legionary practice is too tenuous. You make an interesting point, but no, it isn't sufficient
-
There's no 'must have' about it. If you can point to something in the Roman sources or archeology that specifically mentions such quilted undergarments, you've scored a point. I have to say I've not seen anything like that.
-
I think the term 'quilted armour' needs to be used carefully. The misinterpretation stems from common use in role paying games where the protection value is important rather than the usage. Articles like aketons or gambesons are used in two contexts, firstly as an undergarment for metal armour, secondly as a cheap alternative to metal.
Such articles are known to have seen use from the eleventh century and it seems odd that we don't see more continuous use if the Roman soldier is so equipped. There are of course alternative interpretations. In the first image, the armour appears as a top layer, but might easily be metal plates sewn onto a supporting garment. Remember that the monument would have been painted when fist displayed so we've lost important info. It would be interesting to hear the results of forensic archeology in this regard.
The second image is more convincing but again notice how thick that soldiers undergarments already are. And he wants another layer? It could still be an alternative style of scale armour.
I do take the point but the evidence is not compelling. If there's anything contextual to settle the matter fine, but until I see such evidence, I'll view these images as a curious but unsubstantiated possibility.
-
Nice effort! There's a lot to be said about my home area. I should think about doing something like this.
-
Coins can be found anywhere. I once found a 1925 English shilling in the middle of a crop field. On Time Team, a gold sovereign was found in an old moat. But coins collect where they are used. Locally, in what was once the Roman town of Durocornovium, unusual groups of late empire coins were discovered. What had happened was a change of architecture had led to wooden huts raised on stone plinths, so coins were being lost through the floorboards. Or in the case of Cunetio, a Roman town next to modern day Marlborough, a substantial buried hoard was found, presumably belonging to someone who meant to come back and recover his loot. OR more generally, used as offerings in lakes and rivers.
I suppose really you find coins whereever human beings have been, the amount and disposition depending on the circumstance.
-
1
-
-
This video discusses Sino-Roman contact from a military perspective....
However it is also true that trade and diplomatic missions were taking place on rare occaisions during the Roman period.
Sino-Roman relations - Wikipedia
-
Check this out....
-
A question asked on another forum, but an interesting one. The short answer is yes, although we don't know much about it, and they had knowledge of powerful empires across the continent of Asia because there was trade. That actually sums up the where most of their geography came from - merchants who weren't acting under official orders but seeking new lucrative markets, or in the case of empires like China, heard stories passed on through intermediate trade.
Were there any official expeditions? Again, the short answer is yes, though these were far and few between since the Roman Empire became a very insular beast, but of course sometimes they got curious.
There was a military expedition that went south along the Red Sea coast, blantantly aggressive, which did sterling work subjecting the locals to Roman victory, defeated eventually by sickness, exhaustion, and thirst, forced to retire to safer territory. There is also a mention in the sources of an expedition into the deep deserts of North Africa (Though the areas are probably much more arid now) where the soldiers fought with 'troglodytes' (cavemen). One might add that Caesar's campaigns in Britain were also explorations since the island had not received any official Roman attention before that, and he was looking for precious metals to pay off his debts before returning to Rome. I would add that military scouts must have made many explorations of frontier areas to gauge external threats or find an existing one.
Strabo of course wrote a guide to peoples and nations around the Indian Ocean.
-
There must be a whole plethora of medicinal plants we've forgotten. To be honest, whilst the Romans got very good at treating weapon injuries (or rather, the Greek medics in their service did) their understanding wasn't as good. They were as likely to prescribe prayers as other treatments, and some of them were downright unhealthy. Is it just me or is it Greek medicine that was underpinning Roman health care generally?
-
That is a great find but as always we stumble across stone ruins. So much of Roman construction was based on wood, especially in places like the Britannic provinces, and of course, nothing impressive of that sort survives. Having said that, I haven't forgotten that clever water bucket chain they found in London some years back. The mud at the bottom of the well preserved some of the wood (and where would we be without the wooden letter material found at Vindolanda?)
-
Curious. The origin of the bluestones has been known for a very long time but only now has it become a problem with souvenir hunters?
-
Whilst I won't argue with Pompieus concerning his info, I would point out that it is possible to raise cohorts outside of a legion and form them into a vexillation without the need to go all the way to formal legion organisation. The Praetorians were never amalgamated into a single bodyguard legion (despite coming together in the same camp during Sejanus' attempted power play), and the Urban cohorts, repurposed from praetorians, were similarly organised.
-
There's a curious sensation when you visit a place like this. We're used to Romans on tv and film, and perception of their similarities to the modern day rather colour our ideas. But you see these displays and it's foreign, a bit mysterious even with notices telling the public what it is. That's when you sense the differences in culture.
-
That's an interesting take on things. In Hannibal's case I doubt the prospect of disease was a major consideration. His forces were depleted by campaigning and he was getting desperately short of supply such that a siege of Rome wasn't a practical idea. Note that he doesn't even try, despite the panic in Rome that his arrival could be imminent.
Rewriting Roman legacy in Britain: 5th Century mosaic
in Archaeological News: Britain and Roman-Britain
Posted
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.