caldrail

This gay thing? It's overstated. A common aspect of warrior culture anywhere in the world is a tendency for male bonding. That doesn't mean sex, nor does the Theban relief imply that. What happens is a range of relationships from full on lovers to the mildly friendly, and indeed, to ancient peoples the relief might suggest no more than the 'band of brothers' so beloved of recent WW2 drama. I do know the Greeks were more physical about relationships between men but that did not mean they were actual lovers, just that it might be acceptable to touch, stroke, or caress for reasons such as admiration and closeness. Please note also that between warriors women have a tendency to be seen as interfering or untrustworthy. A man fighting at your side can be relied on - your wife might not be so dependable. However I must concede that human relationships are viewed with different emphasis in ancient times. The Romans for instance saw the active partner as male, the passive partner as female, regardless of actual gender.

No, all I see is a lot of drama. I still see nothing that says she was a pirate. Teuta may well have profitted from her piratical citizens and ruled over them after her husband died - but where are the sources telling us about her involvement in such 'lawful trading'? She certainly continued her husbands aggression and authorised piracy to support such activity - but I see no evidence of 'Pirate Queen'. Queen of a Piratical People maybe. Let's not get carried away.

I would be more careful in these subjective divisions. It is true the Romans generally thought their culture was superior (but check out the sermons from late empire christians - they thought the Romans were decadent, lazy, weak - or at least told their congregations that to inspire more positive attitudes) but ROme was definitely not the one-culture empire most people assume it was. The Roman Empire was cosmopolitan. It was inclusive, not exclusive. True, adopting Roman fashions and language would likely allow you to do better in life, but note that the Romans praised Palmyra for its mix of cultural influences. So when we view these images and figures, clearly we see 'barbarian' styles being depicted. But there is no actual way of determining whether the subject is a Roman citizen or foreigner simply by style. Okay, explicit text or context might dictate that, but visually, no. This idea that all Romans wore the same clothes from one end of the empire to the other is just nonsense. So while the senators of Rome laughed at a young Trajan for his first speech in a rural Iberian accent, ordinary people still spoke other languages than Latin, particularly Greek. I do concede that there was a 'fashion police' attitude in elite circles, so for instance the western Emperor Gratian was criticised for his adoption of Germanic clothing. However, normal human social dynamics suggests that was because he was not as influential as say Hadrian was, whose fashion choices became desirable for everyone else. That said, normal trending behaviour exhibited itself such that Augustus felt compelled to reinforce the idea that Senators should wear formal togas and not go to work in casual attire. Categorisation is a common trend in people (I'm just as guilty) but it is important to realise that the reality is another bell curve instance. A few will dress with precise traditional attire, some rejecting formality or conformity altogether, most adopting a comfortable mix. So a figure in barbarian attire might be a foreigner. Probably a foreigner? But never must be a foreigner. That's why you need to observe clues from the context of the piece.

Aren't you extrapolating here? Teuta may have been Queen of Illyria, but I see nothing to suggest she was herself a pirate despite her kingdom harbouring such activity (and apparently she claimed it was a normal tradition in her realm impossible to suppress when the Romans got shirty about piratical attacks)

Christian history suggests that Constantine became a christian much earlier in 312 yet remained associated with the Unconquered Sun. His delayed baptism has been interpreted as a spiritual insurance policy (Eusebius would certainly disagree). History tends to show that such ruthlessness is rarely responsible for nominating a title like "the Great". Mostly it earns a title like "the Tyrant". Romans in particular had strong views about tyranny and this was something a Roman emperor would be well advised to consider. After all, panem et circuses existed for practical purposes.

Roman manumission served a number of purposes. It allowed the slave some hope and motives for good service beyond simple discipline and punishment, and allowed the owner to demonstrate his humane character (however fake that might have been), especially in the terms of a will which had a social purpose as a legacy describing the character of the deceased . It is worth noting that under the client/patron system the former slave might well be obliged to remain under the patronage of the former owner or even be reliant upon him for prosperity. In fact Augustus enabled legislation to limit the number of slaves that could be manumitted as some patricians almost competed for displays of generosity.

I note how quickly they abandoned the expedition. A more determined leader hellbent on conquest would perhaps have consolidated in one of the captured towns for a while? That said, it was easier to defend your actions in front of the Senate if you didn't add the territory to the empire - that way, you would appear less ambitious and dangerous. The Senate liked cautious characters.

Hmmm... I wonder if a little drama hasn't been inserted into the video. The reason I suggest that is because Rome often mounted military expeditions for raids, politics, and punitive purposes or even exploration, but strictly speaking an invasion would infer that Rome intended to annex or conquer the objective permanently. Note that Rome was a remarkably reluctant invader in the imperial period. Augustus was probably looking for an easy and profitable acquisition since cash was required for his civic program (that was after all why he chose to exploit the 'temporary' occupation of parts of Germania). It would seem entirely likely then that a permanent invasion was no more likely than military intimidation to force tribute.

it is interesting but misleading because inevitably all these surviving remnants are stone. In the past we had at least one member who was transfixed by these stone ruins and did not consider the Romans in any other context, yet many of their less sumptuous villas were built from wood and don't survive. Worse still, the less developed Romano-British towns were a mix of Roman and native styles thus we only tend to perceive the more solid Roman stuff, but for instance archeology at Venta Icenum ("Marketplace of the Iceni") shows roundhouses rubbing up against Roman buildings, with animal pens inside the town walls (Stockade? If they had one there), a snapshot of a town before it strove for emulation of Rome and the economic advantages of doing so.

We've known for some time that the Vikings were an inclusive cosmopolitan lot. Warrior tribes often are - it comes down to whether you like to fight more than your origin. For instance, research has pointed to the interesting high proportion of British women in the Iceland colonies, very likely slaves but possibly some were there by choice.

Camelot has been given in a large number of alternative spellings, but the upshot is that learned opinion says Camelot appears in the 12th century, long before Thomas Mallory standardised the place. It's origins are actually a little vague, but gradually became more defined.

Mallory's book, Le Morte d'Arthur, is considered as something of a gold standard in Arthurian mythos and much of modern story telling is derived from it, though there has been some significant diversion in tv and film in recent decades. You might be interested in this Brutus of Troy - Wikipedia

They're correct. In strict terms, the period should be termed the 'Early Medieval Period' or if you want to, the 'Sub-Roman Period' to indicate the immediate post-Roman world in western Europe. However, the term 'Dark Age' does refer - correctly, in my view - the Early Medieval period in Britain for which literary sources are rare to say the least. The reality is that literature was being imported into Britain even in those turbulent tribal days, but so little survives that we can call it Dark.

Well, Caesar was a very contentious politician in his younger days, brushing aside convention and getting quite brash about his actions. For some, a hero he was not.

Criticism from who I wonder? If christians are responsible, then they need an education. Christianity has always reflected the society it thrived within. Bear in mind that around the end of the eleventh century Pope Urban II was building a pan-european religious empire and the hold over common people was frightening. Luckily the Crusades happened. For all the grief and bloodletting they caused, it certainly defused the Roman Catholic move toward continental domination and a good thing too (we might even of ended up with a medieval holocaust). But then worldly matters had been important for many Roman christians from the beginning. Not for nothing did the christians attempt to unite under the patronage of Constantine The Great (a warrior emperor if ever there was one and a life long pagan).

Rome never had a close relationship with China - they were too far apart. There is, as far as I know, only one recorded instance of a Roman embassy reaching the east. The Chinese were more adventurous and attempted contact with Rome more than once. Always the distance defeated the object of the exercise. Sure, they knew about each other, and as we see some coins got traded across, but never close.

Lancelot is a character invented in the late twelfth century by medieval romance author Chretien Des Troyes (along with Camelot before we get that far). Chretien also invented the Grail as a fictional prop during a scene when the hero, Percival, is at the court of the Fisher-King. He died before the story was finished thus we never find out what the Grail actually was. Later writers made their own versions of the story and connected it to christian mythos to please their audiences, thus the 'Holy Grail' appears, although no such object ever existed. The Church raised no objection, seeing a pagan object find a christian place. Geraint is a welsh word though by some to be a king of the Dumnonia who was in conflict with the Saxons of Wessex. However, it should be realised that it is also derived from a latin word meaning 'old man'. In any event, the existence of a welsh king called Geraint is not proven, and the connection with Arthur is only one of countless origin theories. As lovely as Arthurian myth might be to you, it is not historical and has no more reality than Robin Hood or the Kingdom of Prester John. This is why when you investigate Arthur he evaporates under scrutiny. Perhaps you haven't gotten that far, but trust me, there's nothing substantial.

Modern christian morality is soft. Ancient versions tended to be more austere. Also I note that early christian missionaries were as likely to wield a sword as holy texts.

No. The Romans used military force to subdue problematic tribes on their borders when they felt it was necessary but 'civilising' the neighbour was never on the agenda. They did offer Roman culture as a superior form of society but this was only going to work if the barbarian was receptive. In cases where the tribes were conquered the Romans had a policy of inclusion, and a wise one at that. It is true their leaders would be under pressure to adopt Roman ways, so the tribe could be easily plugged into the Roman system, but remember that free will and self determination were important themes to Romans. If a barbarian wanted to carry being a barbarian under Roman aegis, fine, that was their choice, just as long as they observed Roman allegiance and taxation. A Roman governor wasn't there to rule the province, he was there as Rome's representative and the last word in both Roman and native law. There were cases where it all went wrong. Quintus Publius Varus made the mistake of assuming that the Germanic tribes under Roman occupation were starting to see the benefits of Roman law - but it was merely the calm before the storm as Arminius plotted to rebel (with some justification) Or take the case of the Judaea, which was eventually dissolved as a result of their rebellious actions. Can't behave? Then you can't have your own province. Also one should bear in mind that the Romans were crafty. Their diplomacy was about division among their neighbours to prevent tribes combining forces though this was exactly what happened in the late imperial period, and if you read Tacitus, you will find a sneering approval of the technique of 'softening' a neighbour by the export of Roman luxuries.

Gawain and the Green Knight was a 14th century poem, a story, it has no historical antecedent. It follows the normal conventions of medieval romances. I also note that the British Library tells us the poem was anonymous though it may well be he was from Cheshire.

Have you ever read it? If you get past the first chapter without falling about laughing please let me know and I'll send an ambulance. Forget Arthur. He's an amalgam of Iron Age myths, Roman celebrities, Dark Age heroes, and Medieval romances. Uther Pendragon probably isn't any more historical, rather than a literary means to an end (although I must point out that Arthur is typically added in the late 5th and early 6th century. The 7th century is better documented via the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle thus Arthur could not have been that late - don't confuse the Once and Future King with individuals named Arthur in later centuries - there's at least nine of them)

Roman ships used the trade winds to travel to India and back once a year. Lucrative business apparently with ports like Berenike on the Red Sea coast making a fortune in customs duties/taxation. That wasn't possible with America, prevailing winds tending to be north easterly. It's hard to imagine a Roman ship being prepared for a three thousand mile journey or more, but anecdotal evidence from China shows that Persian Gulf sailors knew how to circum-navigate Africa and how long it would take to reach Rome by sea. I won't accept the idea of Roman contact with America until something concrete emerges (pun intended) but I accept the possibility that some daring and resourceful Roman crew managed it, at least until the ocean conditions got the better of them, though it must be realised that without regular contact and the ruthlessly cutthroat mercantile competition, who would have known America was out there? It's a long way to go on a whim.

Armana. Try this... Thutmose (sculptor) - Wikipedia

The Romans did not exclude foreign religions (although christianity had a bad rep in its early existence). We see tribal beliefs and customs impinging on daily life in the imperial period - but then, Rome was not the massive exercise in assimilation most people perceive it as. 'Romanisation' is more of a modern concept than ancient. To be Roman meant loyalty, allegiance, and tax. It was not about stereotypes.

Roman soldiers were paid three times a year in a special ceremony that sometimes even interrupted campaigns (including Masada). They also held auctions of booty 'under the spear' after a victory. In fact, booty was a major source of income for the legions and a wise commander allowed his men to profit from their enemies. Soldiers denied booty quickly became rebellious, and looking at the sources, it's apparent they were often stubborn and uncooperative (Even Julius Caesar had to cut short his journey down the Nile with Cleopatra because his guards refused to travel further). Then of course the soldiers scammed and gambled, losing their ill gotten gains by one means or another, or spending what they had left on the usual wine, women, and so forth. Little wonder perhaps that when a legion was mobilised, it was commonplace to hold a requisition where troops went through the local population taking whatever they thought would be useful. One of the Roman satires mentions losing a donkey to legionaries and the consequences of complaining about it. Cicero commiserates with his friend for the loss of his animal. And let's not forget that bribery was endemic. In the early Principate the legions even posted official bribe rates to avoid unscrupulous centurions getting too rich.